| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ago(interval) → timestamptz |
| Date: | 2025-11-06 09:37:40 |
| Message-ID: | aa934a26-1923-497c-bcd0-8f50eaf135e4@proxel.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/4/25 6:55 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Moreover, a good percentage of the users would instead need ago(interval) -> timestamp.
I don't get what users would need ago(interval) -> timestamp. That
function would not make any sense since there is no equivalent to now()
which returns timestamp, simply because a timestamp does not refer to
any specific point in time and can only be interpreted with some
additional piece of information like a time zone.
That said I can't get too excited about this patch since it is just a
shorter way to write e.g. now() - interval '1 day'. It would also be
quite funny to see all uses of ago('-1 day') for tomorrow.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2025-11-06 09:38:31 | Re: GiST README typos |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-11-06 09:20:09 | Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB |