Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> Yes, but by the same token "iso8601" isn't specific enough either. >> Several of the other input formats we support have at least as good a >> claim on that name.
> The only input formats we support are along the lines of > @ 1 year 2 mons 3 days 4 hours 5 mins 6 secs > @ 1 year 2 mons 3 days 04:05:06 Sorry, I was thinking of timestamp formats not intervals. You're right that we don't have anything else particularly ISO-standard for intervals, but my understanding is that formats like '2003-09-08 18:43:31.046283-04' are ISO8601 compatible for timestamps. (Possibly you need to put a T in there for strict compatibility, not sure.) regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]