To: Robert Treat <robert@omniti.com>
cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org, "Amber" <guxiaobo1982@hotmail.com>,
	"Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@commandprompt.com>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL TPC-H test result? 
In-reply-to: <200809091129.54467.robert@omniti.com> 
References: <BLU139-DS5AB90A6E11E3F439F0006CD540@phx.gbl>
	<20080909123947.GA59092@commandprompt.com>
	<BLU139-DS28D9D90A25BD2AD8CDEF0CD540@phx.gbl>
	<200809091129.54467.robert@omniti.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Treat <robert@omniti.com>
	message dated "Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:29:54 -0400"
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:26:55 -0400
Message-ID: <24765.1220992015@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Robert Treat <robert@omniti.com> writes:
> http://www.it.iitb.ac.in/~chetanv/personal/acads/db/report_html/node10.html. 
> It isn't terribly informative, but it doesindicate one thing, someone else 
> was able to run query #6 correctly, while the above site claims it returns an 
> error. Now when I look at query#6 from that site, I notice it shows the 
> following syntax:

> interval '1' year.  

> when I saw that, it jumped out at me as something that could be an issue, and 
> it is:

Yeah.  This is SQL spec syntax, but it's not fully implemented in
Postgres: the grammar supports it but the info doesn't get propagated to
interval_in, and interval_in wouldn't know what to do even if it did
have the information that there was a YEAR qualifier after the literal.

That's probably not good because it *looks* like we support the syntax,
but in fact produce non-spec-compliant results.  I think it might be
better if we threw an error.

Or someone could try to make it work, but given that no one has taken
the slightest interest since Tom Lockhart left the project, I wouldn't
hold my breath waiting for that.

			regards, tom lane