| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Date: | 2012-01-31 04:29:44 |
| Message-ID: | 24935.1327984184@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 1/30/12 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the current marking is clearly incorrect. What to do about that
>> is a bit less clear --- should we downgrade the marking, or change the
>> function's behavior so that it really is immutable?
> AFAIK, the only case which is NOT immutable is extract(epoch FROM
> timestamp without time zone), no?
That's the only one we currently know is not immutable. But before we
make any decisions, I think it'd be a good idea to scrutinize all the
other cases too, because obviously this area has gotten some careless
hacking (*) done on it in the past.
regards, tom lane
(*) I have a nasty feeling that the carelessness was mine.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Edwin Quijada | 2012-01-31 05:04:36 | HELP - compiling C functions for wiondws |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-31 04:18:31 | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2012-01-31 05:55:04 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-31 04:18:31 | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |