| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Date: | 2012-08-27 15:07:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20120827150755.GK11088@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> > anyway - the point is that in \df date_part(, timestamp) says it's
> > immutable, while it is not.
>
> Hmm, you're right. I thought we'd fixed that way back when, but
> obviously not. Or maybe the current behavior of the epoch case
> postdates that.
Has this been addressed?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maximilian Tyrtania | 2012-08-27 15:09:31 | Re: Odd query result |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-08-27 14:20:25 | Re: unexpected pageaddr in the log of a standby server |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-27 15:42:40 | Re: Minor "pre-bug" in gram.y for DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY IF_P EXISTS |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-08-27 14:52:51 | Re: Caching for stable expressions with constant arguments v6 |