>Farid Zidan <fa...@zidsoft.com> wrote: >> If we were strictly complying with the SQL standard, > Considering the statement works in all the 9 DBMS systems+ that I > have tested so far as mentioned above, I would say PostgreSQL is > not compliant with SQL standard in this regard. The SQL standard is a document published by the International Standards Organization (ISO) and also adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Those documents don't require a query in either of the forms you presented to work. Because of the convenience factor, most database products have non-standard extensions to omit type specification in some places. PostgreSQL's extensions are oriented more toward user-installable data types (such as geometric shapes or global coordinates), so the particulars of our non-standard extensions differ so that use of those features is as easy as practicable. That does result in some non-standard extensions which work in other products not working in PostgreSQL. I think you'll find that the syntax I suggested (using the standard timestamp literal instead of a bare character string literal) will work in all of the databases you mentioned; if you want portable code, it is best to follow the standard rather than some inferred popular convention. I hope this helps. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
