>Farid Zidan <fa...@zidsoft.com> wrote: > can be eliminated by appropriately handling the distinct keyword > and does not have to occur. Based on previous discussions around our approaching data types, I don't think any of the regular PostgreSQL developers are likely to agree with you; but if you see a way to make it work, feel free to submit a patch. See this page for the process: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch > The ISO-datetime string literal format I am using the most > general/standard for datetime/timestamp and is not the issue here. The format in your string literal is the portable one; however, a timestamp literal requires the TIMESTAMP keyword ahead of the string literal, which you have chosen to omit. Did you try the query with a proper timestamp literal, as I suggested, against all these databases? If using standard syntax works, why not use it? > The 'distinct' keyword is causing the error. No, non-standard syntax is causing the error in the case of DISTINCT, because our extension to the standard does not cover that case, even though it covers the other. There are good reasons for that, which you'll probably discover in short order if you work on a patch for the issue. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
