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

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

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
Date: 2009-07-29 17:07:16
Message-ID: 407d949e0907291007p6817d4e1u91b964fe7a16ec2a@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
greg
http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: decibelDate: 2009-07-29 17:11:42
Subject: Re: Higher TOAST compression.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-29 16:37:20
Subject: Re: system timezone regression failure

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