Re: ago(interval) → timestamptz

From: Quan Zongliang <quanzongliang(at)yeah(dot)net>
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: 2025-11-04 08:53:39
Message-ID: de0a33e0-97b9-45f1-9cbe-949db62943fe@yeah.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/4/25 1:55 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-11-03 at 22:36 +0100, Florents Tselai wrote:
>> I realize this will get some "you can easily implement this yourself” pushback,
>> But I keep seeing and writing a lot of WHERE ts > now() - interval '1 day' expressions.
>
> You can easily implement this yourself...
> Also, there already is something similar in the shape of 'yesterday'::timestamptz.
> Moreover, a good percentage of the users would instead need ago(interval) -> timestamp.
>
> So I'd say that the added value is marginal, and I personally find
>
> current_timestamp - INTERVAL '1' DAY
>
> more readable and more SQL standard compliant than
>
> ago('1 day')
>
now() - interval '1 day' is merely an example. In fact, we could use any
time. For example
now() - interval '10 day 5 hours 21 minutes'
This is beyond the scope of what yesterday() can support.

Therefore, I think this patch can be accepted. Make the user's operation
more convenient.

--
Quan Zongliang

> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2025-11-04 08:57:12 Extra blank line in StrategyGetBuffer
Previous Message Rahila Syed 2025-11-04 08:47:44 Re: Extend injection_points_attach() to accept a user-defined function