| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: text coverage for EXTRACT() |
| Date: | 2020-06-09 14:11:52 |
| Message-ID: | 2208368.1591711912@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
> On 6/9/20 1:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> During the discussion in [0] I noticed that the extract()/date_part()
>> variants for time, timetz, and interval had virtually no test coverage.
>> So I put some more tests together, which should be useful if we decide
>> to make any changes in this area per [0].
> These look straightforward to me.
+1 here as well.
> Looking at that big table, I see everything is 0-based except the
> quarter. That seems unfortunate, and if this were a new feature I'd
> lobby to have it changed. I don't think we can do anything about it
> now, though.
Yeah, that ship has sailed :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Odin Ugedal | 2020-06-09 14:24:24 | Re: [PATCH] Add support for choosing huge page size |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2020-06-09 14:00:13 | pg_dump and concurrent DDL activity |