Re: Extracting fields from 'infinity'::TIMESTAMP[TZ]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 9:37 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>> I'd like to raise a topic about extracting fields from infinite
>> timestamps, so much more that it is mentioned in the TODO list:
>> "Determine how to represent date/time field extraction on infinite
>> timestamps".
>>
>> Currently extracting any field from 'infinity'::TIMESTAMP[TZ] gives
>> result "0" as a mark it has "special" input value.
>>
>> The most confusing case is 'epoch' field: returning "0" from
>> "infinity" means the same thing as returning "0" from "1970-01-01+00".
>>
>> Returning zero in most other cases is only slightly less confusing
>> (may be because for me they are less often used).
>> For example, what about "SELECT EXTRACT(DOW FROM TIMESTAMP
>> 'Infinity')" with result 0, as if it is Sunday?
>> The same thing with fields: decade, hour, minute, seconds,
>> microseconds, milliseconds, timezone, timezone_hour, timezone_minute.
>> Also for "millennium" and "year" (with the note "Keep in mind there is
>> no 0 AD") current returning value is _between_ allowed values, but
>> disallowed.

> We're definitely not going to back-patch this. Let's tally up the
> votes on that other thread:
>
> Danielle Varrazzo: infinity
> Bruce Momjian: infinity
> Robert Haas: not sure we want to change anything, but if so let's
> definitely NOT throw an error
> Alvaro Herrera: infinity for epoch, but what about other things?
> Brendan Jurd: infinity for epoch, error for other things
> Tom Lane: infinity for epoch, error or NaN for other things
> Josh Berkus: definitely change something, current behavior sucks
>
> That doesn't seem like enough consensus to commit this patch, which
> would change everything to +/-infinity. That particular choice
> wouldn't bother me much, but it sounds like other people aren't sold.
> I think we need to try to hash that out a little more rather than
> rushing into a backward-incompatible change.

I agree that none of this should be back-patched.

I agree that a timestamp[tz] of infinity should yield infinity for
epoch.

My first choice for other things would be NaN, but throwing an
error instead would be OK.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company