Arturo Perez wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >I seriously doubt that. date_part on a timestamptz is stable, not > >immutable, and AFAICT has been marked that way since 7.3. The problem > >is that the results depend on your current TimeZone setting --- for > >instance, 2AM 2006-01-01 in London is 9PM 2005-12-31 where I live. > > > >If you only need day precision, try storing entry_date as a date > >instead > >of a timestamptz. Or perhaps consider timestamp without tz. But you > >need something that's not timezone-dependent to make this work. > > Ah, I knew it was something I was overlooking. Thanks a ton. We need > sub-day granularity (it's for a sort of weblog). Without a TZ sounds > llke a winner. Another idea would be to separate the date column (which would have the index) from the time column (which would have the timezone). The timezone is important -- if you have "bloggers" from all around the world you're gonna have serious problems with the archived time. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
