Brendan Jurd wrote: > On 5/24/06, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > Brendan, > > > > > There are two classes of intervals. One class, called year-month > > > intervals, has an express or implied datetime precision that includes > > > no fields other than YEAR and MONTH, though not both are required. The > > > other class, called day-time intervals, has an express or implied > > > interval precision that can include any fields other than YEAR or > > > MONTH. > > > > Yeah, we used to do that. It sucked. In fact, most developers of > > applications which were calendar-heavy ended up using custom data types to > > work around the SQL-spec INTERVAL limitations. And that benefits nobody. > > > > Could you elaborate on how it sucked? Apart from the issue of > daylight savings which Tom has mentioned, what are these limitations > that needed to be worked around? > > I've been searching through the archives for discussions relating to > intervals, but haven't come across the one you're describing. Most > probably because there have been a LOT of discussions relating to > intervals.
Well, it seems to just eliminate the 30-day problem by disallowing it, and creating two data types. I don't see how that is better than what we have now. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
