Tom Lane wrote:
...failure case ... interval 'P-1Y-2M3DT-4H-5M-6';
This isn't the result I'd expect, and AFAICS the ISO spec does *not*
allow any unit markers to be omitted in the format with designators.
Yes, this is true. I see you already made the change.
Tom Lane wrote:
Applied with nontr
R Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Applied and pushed to the website http://0ape.com/postgres_interval_patches/
Applied with nontrivial revisions --- I fear I probably broke your third
patch again :-(. There were still a number of parsing bugs, and I also
didn't like the lack of error checking
R Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Applied and pushed to the website http://0ape.com/postgres_interval_patches/
I ran into an interesting failure case:
regression=# select interval 'P-1Y-2M3DT-4H-5M-6';
interval
---
P-1Y-2M3DT-10H-5M
(1 row)
This isn't the result I
Brendan Jurd wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:36 AM, Ron Mayer
I get the expected result from 'P0001', but oddly enough if I specify
only the year and month, it pukes:
postgres=# select interval 'P0001-01';
Indeed. Thanks again.
I've fixed this and added regression tests to check the handling
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm ready to sign off on this patch now and move on to the final
> cleanup patch. I'll update the commitfest to show this one as "ready
> for committer".
OK, I'll pick this one up now.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hack
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:51 AM, R Mayer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Applied and pushed to the website http://0ape.com/postgres_interval_patches/
>
This latest version works as expected and I don't detect any other
issues with the code or documentation ... seems I've run out of things
to gripe ab
Ron Mayer wrote:
Ah! That 5.5.4.2.1 comes from apparently an old Oct 2000
draft version of the spec titled ISO/FDIS 8601. (For now you can
see it here: http://0ape.com/postgres_interval_patches/ISO-FDIS-8601.pdf )
I'll fix all the links to point to the 2004 spec.
I updated my web site[1] wi
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:36 AM, Ron Mayer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I updated my web site[1] with the latest version of this patch.
I'm just testing this latest version out now.
I get the expected result from 'P0001', but oddly enough if I specify
only the year and month, it pukes:
postgres=
Brendan Jurd wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmmm... Certainly what I had in datatype.sgml was wrong, but I'm
now thinking 5.5.4.2.1 and 5.5.4.2.2 would be the most clear?
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "5.5.4.2.1". In the spec
Ah! T
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmmm... Certainly what I had in datatype.sgml was wrong, but I'm
> now thinking 5.5.4.2.1 and 5.5.4.2.2 would be the most clear?
>
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "5.5.4.2.1". In the spec
you linked to, clause 5 "
Brendan Jurd wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I updated the web site and git now, and
'P-00-01' is now accepted. It might be useful if
someone double checked my reading of the spec, tho.
I've tested out your latest revision and read the
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I updated the web site and git now, and
> 'P-00-01' is now accepted. It might be useful if
> someone double checked my reading of the spec, tho.
>
Hi Ron,
I've tested out your latest revision and read the spec mo
Ron Mayer wrote:
Brendan Jurd wrote:
'T' ...
Indeed that's a bug in my code; where I was sometimes
requiring the 'T' (in the ISO8601 "alternative format") and
sometimes not (in the ISO8601 format from 5.5.4.2.1).
Below's a test case. If I read the spec[1] right both of those
should mean 1
Brendan Jurd wrote:
I've applied them with a couple minor changes.
* If ISO 8601 5.5.3.1.d's statement "The designator T shall be
absent if all of the time components are absent." also applies
to 5.5.4.2.2; then I think the 'T' needed to be inside the
tags, so I moved it there. The link to the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow thanks! That's very helpful (though it might have been more
> fair to your time if you just kicked it back to me saying "rewrite
> the docs" so they make sense)!
>
Maybe ... but I figured it would take more time to fully e
Brendan Jurd wrote:
Reviewing this patch now; I'm working from the 'iso8601' branch in
... I thought I'd post a patch of my own (against your branch)
and accompany it with a few explanatory notes.
Wow thanks! That's very helpful (though it might have been more
fair to your time if you just ki
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
> This patch (that works on top of the IntervalStyle patch I
> posted earlier today) adds support for ISO8601 standard[0]
> "Time Interval" "Durations" of the "format with designators"
> (section 4.4.4.2.1). T
Ron Mayer wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
In fact, given that we are now
somewhat SQL-compliant on interval input, a GUC that selected
PG traditional, SQL-standard, or ISO 8601 interval output format seems
like it could be a good idea.
This patch (that works on top of the IntervalStyle patch I
posted e
18 matches
Mail list logo
