| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Date: | 2012-01-25 16:30:49 |
| Message-ID: | 29931.1327509049@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-25 16:54:44 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-25 16:30:17 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-25 16:40:28 | Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-25 16:30:17 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |