Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch

On 5/25/20 6:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
>> On 5/25/20 3:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I looked into this (changing the return types of date_part()/extract()
>>> from float8 to numeric).
>
>> I think what would be better is to have a specific date_part function
>> for each part and have extract translate to the appropriate one.
>
> Doesn't really work for upwards compatibility with existing views,
> which will have calls to date_part(text, ...) embedded in them.
>
> Actually, now that I think about it, changing the result type of
> date_part() is likely to be problematic anyway for such cases.
> It's not going to be good if pg_upgrade's dump/restore of a view
> results in a new output column type; especially if it's a
> materialized view.
>
> So maybe what we'd have to do is leave date_part() alone for
> legacy compatibility, and invent new functions that the extract()
> syntax would now be translated to.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was suggesting adding new functions while
also keeping the current generic function. So exactly what you say in
that last paragraph.

Although <extract expression> has a fixed list of constant parts,
date_part() allows the part to be variable. So we need to keep it
anyway for cases like this contrived example:

SELECT date_part(p, now())
FROM UNNEST(ARRAY['epoch', 'year', 'second']) AS u (p)

> While at it, maybe we could
> fix things so that the syntax reverse-lists the same way instead
> of injecting Postgres-isms...

I'm not sure what this means.
--
Vik Fearing