On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > hubert depesz lubaczewski <dep...@depesz.com> 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.
Has this been addressed? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
