Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
> anyway - the point is that in \df date_part(, timestamp) says it's
> immutable, while it is not.
>>
>> Hmm, you're right. I thought we'd fixed that way back when, but
>> obvi
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
> > anyway - the point is that in \df date_part(, timestamp) says it's
> > immutable, while it is not.
>
> Hmm, you're right. I thought we'd fixed that way back when, but
> obviously not. Or maybe the
Josh Berkus writes:
> On 1/30/12 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the current marking is clearly incorrect. What to do about that
>> is a bit less clear --- should we downgrade the marking, or change the
>> function's behavior so that it really is immutable?
> AFAIK, the only case which is NOT
On 1/30/12 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> We can't have functions which are immutable or not depending on their
>>> inputs. That way lies madness.
>
>> but this is exactly what's happening now.
>
>
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> We can't have functions which are immutable or not depending on their
>> inputs. That way lies madness.
> but this is exactly what's happening now.
Well, the current marking is clearly incorrect.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > preferably I would see extract( epoch from timestamp ) to be really
> > immutable, i.e. (in my opinion) it should treat incoming data as UTC
> > - for epoch calculation.
> > Alternatively - perhaps epoch extraction should be moved
> preferably I would see extract( epoch from timestamp ) to be really
> immutable, i.e. (in my opinion) it should treat incoming data as UTC
> - for epoch calculation.
> Alternatively - perhaps epoch extraction should be moved to specialized
> function, which would have swapped mutability:
We can
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
> > anyway - the point is that in \df date_part(, timestamp) says it's
> > immutable, while it is not.
>
> Hmm, you're right. I thought we'd fixed that way back when, but
> obviously not. Or maybe the
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
> anyway - the point is that in \df date_part(, timestamp) says it's
> immutable, while it is not.
Hmm, you're right. I thought we'd fixed that way back when, but
obviously not. Or maybe the current behavior of the epoch case
postdates that.
