Re: ISO 8601 Intervals

One more link...
this http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00049.php
was the final draft of the patch I submitted, with docs patches, that
did not break backward computability (did not rip out the old syntax)
and supported both input and output of ISO-8601 compliant intervals
by setting the datestyle to "iso8601basic" as discussed in the thread
linked in the quoted article below.

It was applied http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00253.php
and then debated http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00202.php
and then unapplied http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00030.php
on Peter Eisentraut's recommendation to implement SQL standard intervals first.



Ron Mayer wrote:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
> 
>> Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 8, 2006, at 12:12 , Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>>
>>>>   I was thinking of handling the TODO for ISO8601 Interval output.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, you're talking about the ISO8601 duration syntax
>>> (PnYnMnDTnHnMnS), correct? (The SQL standard made the unfortunate
>>> choice to call durations, i.e., lengths of time, intervals.)  
> 
> 
> Back in 2003 I submitted such a patch [1,1b] that resulted in a fair
> amount of discussion including some still (AFAIK) open issues
> about the naming of the datestyle settings to control it [2,3,4].
> 
> There was also some discussion of the range off ISO 8601 durations
> to support (ISO 8601 Basic Format, ISO  8601 Alternative Format,
> and ISO 8601 Extended Format (which is more human-readable)) [5].
> 
> Finally, there is a similar, but different syntax currently supported
> by postgresql (where '1Y1M' means 1 year 1 minute, while ISO 'P1Y1M'
> would mean 1 year 1 month) and Tom recommended ripping that code
> out[7] and at one point said my patch was looking cleaner than
> the exiting code [8].  My patch does not yet rip that out.
> 
> 
> I still use the patch myself, but don't have it updated to CVS tip.
> I'd be happy to do so if people want that as a starting point.
> 
>    Ron
> 
> 
> [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00103.php
> [1b] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00286.php
> [2] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00122.php
> [3] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00129.php
> [4] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00130.php
> [5] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00133.php
> [6] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00134.php
> [7] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00134.php
> 
> [8] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-09/msg00121.php