X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB12F475EA4
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:31:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (unknown [209.10.40.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 316B1475E4D
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:31:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (HELO spooky)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2)
	with ESMTP id 2922180 for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:31:27 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Does anyone use TO_CHAR(INTERVAL)?
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:31:27 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <200303250931.27351.josh@agliodbs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_10,USER_AGENT_KMAIL
	autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
X-Archive-Number: 200303/559
X-Sequence-Number: 12597

Folks,

We're discussing the behavior of the current "to_char(interval)" function o=
n=20
HACKERS.   Does anyone on this list use the current behavior?   Please spea=
k=20
up, as we're trying to figure out what backward compatibility needs to be=
=20
maintained.

PLEASE NOTE:  This is only to_char() for INTERVAL values, NOT for dates,=20
timestamp, or numeric!

Thanks!

--=20
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco