Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 18:04 , Alban Hertroys wrote:
>
>> Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 18, 2007, at 20:29 , Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I don't understand, however, is exactly *why* date_trunc is not
>>>> immutable ?
>>>
>>> I believe it's because the result of date_trunc depends on the time zone
>>> setting for the session.
>>
>> I understand the reasoning, but _under the conditions_ it is being used
>> by the OP it could have been immutable, right?
>
> *Under the conditions* doesn't really make sense wrt immutable
> functions. Immutable means is immutable under all conditions.
What I'm trying to say is not that it _is_ immutable, but that it
_behaves_ immutable (under said conditions).
This could imply that if a certain condition is available in a query on
which such a function operates, it would behave immutable.
--
Alban Hertroys
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
magproductions b.v.
T: ++31(0)534346874
F: ++31(0)534346876
M:
I: www.magproductions.nl
A: Postbus 416
7500 AK Enschede
// Integrate Your World //
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
