On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:37:20PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > That still seems to be the case in the draft of the 2003 standard I > have: > > <general literal> ::= > <character string literal> > | <national character string literal> > | <Unicode character string literal> > | <binary string literal> > | <datetime literal> > | <interval literal> > | <boolean literal> > <character string literal> ::= > [ <introducer><character set specification> ] > <quote> [ <character representation>... ] <quote> > [ { <separator> <quote> [ <character representation>... ] <quote> > }... ] > > The ball's in your court to show something in the standard to say that > a character string literal is ever *not* to be taken as a character > string.
Huh, you're right. I'd always thought '2001-01-01' was a valid date literal, seems the standard has required it to be prefixed by DATE at least back to SQL92. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs