Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Aug 15, 2004, at 1:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There was however another patch submitted recently that seemed to
>> duplicate yours functionally but used a different syntax --- I think 

> Other than Chris' suggestion of extract(timestamp from epoch)?

[ looks in archives... ]  Oh, actually that was *you* --- I was vaguely
remembering your proposed patch of 2-Aug.  You were calling the function
epoch_to_timestamp at the time.

I like to_timestamp(double) better than these other names ...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to