Re: INTERVAL type: SQL92 implementation

I seem to have the complete released (I think) SQL99 docs.  If anyone wants
them - just reply to me personally.  Should they be put on the postgres
site?  Is that legal?

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Ken Hirsch
> Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2001 5:18 AM
> To: Hackers List
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] INTERVAL type: SQL92 implementation
>
>
>
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> wrote:
> > We have a copy of an SQL99 draft which seems to be reasonably complete.
> > afaik we haven't come across an actual released version. Let me know if
> > you want me to forward it; perhaps it is on the ftp or web site?
>
> ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/doc/sql/sql1998.tar.gz
>
> Mostly the same files are at
> http://gatekeeper.research.compaq.com/pub/standards/sql/
> (or ftp).
>
> I didn't know until recently that the ANSI standard was available in PDF
> form for an almost reasonable price ($18/part) compared to the outrageous
> ISO price ($98 to $275 per part).
>
> See http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/find.asp?find_spec=sql
>
> [...]
> > Not sure what you mean here. The existing type does keep years/months
> > stored separately from the days/hours/minutes/seconds (a total of two
> > internal fields) but SQL99 asks that these be kept completely away from
> > each other from what you've said. Does it define any arithmetic between
> > the two kinds of intervals?
>
> No.  Days/hours/minutes/seconds are exact quantities whereas years and
> months are not, so they don't mix.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>