Re: BUG #1517: SQL interval syntax is accepted by the parser,

Tom> That would eliminate the backward-compatibility problem
    Tom> pretty well (since the constraints aren't documented and
    Tom> hence aren't being used now), while not posing a big problem
    Tom> for ISO cases (since if there's no constraint there are no
    Tom> ambiguous cases, I believe --- the ISO syntax would require
    Tom> all fields to be present).

The 'constraint' (interval type descriptor or whatever it's really
called) is mandatory in standard SQL, I think, so there's no ambiguity
anyway, unless anyone is using this undocumented syntax at the
moment...