| From: | Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why *exactly* is date_trunc() not immutable ? |
| Date: | 2007-02-19 21:44:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20070219214410.GZ4072@merkur.hilbert.loc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 03:28:01PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > What is the technical reason that makes you wonder ?
>
> Because it would make doing the queries simpler.
> If you aren't collecting the data, it doesn't make sense to deal with the
> extra headaches involved with pretending you know what time of day someone
> was born.
Oh, I see. When I said that users don't enter the hour and
minute that was targetted at search time. They do enter the
time part when entering a new patient, of course.
So, it's surely collected. It's just not used for searching.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gabriel Colina | 2007-02-19 22:38:26 | Re: QNX, RTOS y Postgres OT |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-02-19 21:39:53 | boolean operator on interval producing strange results |