From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
Date: | 2012-01-30 17:28:59 |
Message-ID: | 20120130172859.GB8109@depesz.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> > anyway - the point is that in \df date_part(, timestamp) says it's
> > immutable, while it is not.
>
> Hmm, you're right. I thought we'd fixed that way back when, but
> obviously not. Or maybe the current behavior of the epoch case
> postdates that.
is there a chance something will happen with/about it?
preferably I would see extract( epoch from timestamp ) to be really
immutable, i.e. (in my opinion) it should treat incoming data as UTC
- for epoch calculation.
Alternatively - perhaps epoch extraction should be moved to specialized
function, which would have swapped mutability:
get_epoch(timestamptz) would be immutable
while
get_epoch(timestamp) would be stable
Best regards,
depesz
--
The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact with it.
http://depesz.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-30 17:43:46 | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-30 17:23:15 | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-30 17:43:46 | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-30 17:28:46 | Re: Simulating Clog Contention |