X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCD832A13D for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:37:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87265-09 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:37:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.postgresql.com (www.postgresql.com [200.46.204.209]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B72C32A13C for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:37:35 +0100 (BST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by www.postgresql.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11495A1035 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:37:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i8TFWOXa029368; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:32:24 -0400 (EDT) To: "Thomas F.O'Connell" Cc: Stephan Szabo , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: EXTRACT Clarification In-reply-to: <0E177963-1214-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> References: <20040928222637.L43334@megazone.bigpanda.com> <0E177963-1214-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Thomas F.O'Connell" message dated "Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:35:32 -0400" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:32:24 -0400 Message-ID: <29367.1096471944@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200409/41 X-Sequence-Number: 2560 "Thomas F.O'Connell" writes: > I'm thinking something like this (with thanks to Stephan): > Note: EXTRACT is not a true function. SQL defines it as an expression > that happens to look similar to a function call. Rather than documenting this, maybe we should change the grammar to allow it? regards, tom lane