Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
Date: 2009-07-29 19:00:58
Message-ID: 28560.1248894058@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I agree that we should change it, but should we back-patch it, and if so
>> how far?

> Well at least to 8.4 so someone who has just always been using
> downloaded binaries or binaries compiled with the default
> configuration continues to get the same behaviour.

> My inclination would be to backpatch it further back. But I'm not 100%
> sure either.

Given the lack of prior complaints, I'm thinking just to 8.4 is a good
compromise.  Any objections out there?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2009-07-29 19:12:04
Subject: Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string
Previous:From: pgsqlDate: 2009-07-29 18:17:26
Subject: Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group