On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:02:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sinte we already have width_bucket, I'd argue this should go in core. If
> > someone's feeling adventurous, there should probably be a double
> > precision version as well. Hrm... and maybe text...
> It's not clear to me why we have width_bucket operating on numeric and
> not float8 --- that seems like an oversight, if not outright
> misunderstanding of the type hierarchy.  But if we had the float8
> version, I think Jeremy's problem would be solved just by applying
> the float8 version to "extract(epoch from timestamp)".  I don't really
> see the use-case for putting N versions of the function in there.

Well, it would be nice to have a timestamp version so that users didn't
have to keep typing "extract(epoch from timestamp)"... but yeah, I
suspect that would work fine for timestamps. For intervals I suspect you
could just convert to seconds (if we're going to add timestamps, it
seems like we should add intervals as well).
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to