| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Jarvis <thangalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Analysis Function |
| Date: | 2010-06-16 06:36:25 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTiniF1l74La0AUhGsAKitnpgwkVmbA2C6qzijMcy@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 15:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 21:19, David Jarvis <thangalin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I prefer to_timestamp and to_date over the more verbose construct_timestamp.
>
>> Yeah, I agree with that.
>
> Those names are already taken. It will cause confusion (of both people
> and machines) if you try to overload them with this.
Fair enough. How about something like make_timestamp? It's at least
shorter and easier than construct :-)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2010-06-16 07:48:23 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
| Previous Message | jgardner@jonathangardner.net | 2010-06-16 06:30:30 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |