> On 25 Jan 2024, at 09:40, Nikolay Samokhvalov <n...@postgres.ai> wrote:
>
> From a practical point of view, these two things are extremely important to
> have to support partitioning. It is better to implement limitations than
> throw them away.
Postgres always was a bit hackerish, allowing slightly more then is safe. I.e.
you can define immutable function that is not really immutable, turn off
autovacuum or fsync. Why bother with safety guards here?
My opinion is that we should have this function to extract timestamp. Even if
it can return strange values for imprecise RFC implementation.
> On 25 Jan 2024, at 02:15, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postg...@jeltef.nl> wrote:
>
> So +1 for erroring when you provide a timestamp outside of that range
> (either too far in the past or too far in the future).
OK, it seems like we have some consensus on ERRORing..
Do we have any other open items? Does v13 address all open items? Maybe let’s
compose better error message?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
