| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) |
| Date: | 2004-10-02 00:50:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20041002005008.GA24766@wolff.to |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice pgsql-sql |
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 18:53:03 -0400,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force an
> initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be fixed
> in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now without
> noticing, so it doesn't seem like a serious enough bug to force a
> post-beta initdb ... to me anyway.
As long as it is mentioned in the release notes, it doesn't seem worth
forcing an initdb.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-10-02 08:43:01 | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-01 22:53:03 | Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-10-02 08:43:01 | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-01 22:53:03 | Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-10-02 08:43:01 | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-01 22:53:03 | Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) |