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 A040432A13B for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:09:25 +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 00818-09 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:09:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D5932A150 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:09:04 +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 i8TG9282029856; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:09:02 -0400 (EDT) To: "Thomas F. O'Connell" Cc: Stephan Szabo , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: EXTRACT Clarification In-reply-to: <29A85DE5-122E-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> References: <20040928222637.L43334@megazone.bigpanda.com> <0E177963-1214-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> <29367.1096471944@sss.pgh.pa.us> <29A85DE5-122E-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Thomas F. O'Connell" message dated "Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:42:26 -0400" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:09:02 -0400 Message-ID: <29855.1096474142@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: 200409/43 X-Sequence-Number: 2562 "Thomas F. O'Connell" writes: > That seems reasonable, too, although I was interested to learn that > this (and a few other expressions) weren't actually functions. They are functions ... but not from the point of view of the grammar, which has special productions for them to cope with SQL's whimsical syntax requirements. regards, tom lane