Re: Revisiting extract(epoch from timestamp)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Revisiting extract(epoch from timestamp)
Date: 2012-04-09 18:13:24
Message-ID: 10732.1333995204@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
>> so that we could mark it immutable. On the other hand, it's not
>> entirely apparent why people would need to create indexes on the epoch
>> value rather than just indexing the timestamp itself

> Well, it makes for smaller indexes if you don't really care about
> sub-second resolutions.

Well, maybe in principle, but in practice it's an 8-byte value either
way. I guess you could down-convert to an int4 if you plan to be
safely dead before 2038 ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-04-09 18:14:40 Re: Revisiting extract(epoch from timestamp)
Previous Message Atri Sharma 2012-04-09 18:11:51 Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application