Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun abr 09 15:38:21 -0300 2012:
>> What exactly would you do with it there that you couldn't do more easily
>> and clearly with plain timestamp comparisons? I'm willing to be
>> convinced, but I want to see a case where it really is the
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun abr 09 15:38:21 -0300 2012:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> Robert Haas writes:
> >>> If somebody needs it I'd probably be in favor of doing it. I'm not
> >>> sure I'd do it on spec.
>
> > It would be useful to have a simple function to use with timesta
Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> If somebody needs it I'd probably be in favor of doing it. I'm not
>>> sure I'd do it on spec.
> It would be useful to have a simple function to use with timestamp in
> constraint exclusion without having to use contorted expressions ...
> An im
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun abr 09 15:04:10 -0300 2012:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-01/msg00649.php
> >> The above-linked discussion also brings up a different point, which is
> >> th
"Greg Sabino Mullane" writes:
>> so that we could mark it immutable. On the other hand, it's not
>> entirely apparent why people would need to create indexes on the epoch
>> value rather than just indexing the timestamp itself
> Well, it makes for smaller indexes if you don't really care about
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-01/msg00649.php
>> The above-linked discussion also brings up a different point, which is
>> that extracting the epoch from a timestamptz is an immutable operation,
>> but be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> so that we could mark it immutable. On the other hand, it's not
> entirely apparent why people would need to create indexes on the epoch
> value rather than just indexing the timestamp itself
Well, it makes for smaller indexes if you don't r
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> A long time ago, we had this bug report:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2003-02/msg00069.php
> in consequence of which, I changed timestamp_part() so that it would
> rotate a timestamp-without-timezone from the local timezone to GMT
>
A long time ago, we had this bug report:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2003-02/msg00069.php
in consequence of which, I changed timestamp_part() so that it would
rotate a timestamp-without-timezone from the local timezone to GMT
before extracting the epoch offset (commit
191ef2b407f06554
