| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: text coverage for EXTRACT() |
| Date: | 2020-06-14 06:18:01 |
| Message-ID: | 85438c51-7c04-20db-c183-15642523f81c@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-06-09 16:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2020-06-14 07:15:37 | Re: extensible options syntax for replication parser? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-06-14 05:46:01 | Re: some grammar refactoring |