Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis <thanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does it makes sense to use named parameter notation for the first value (the
>> year)? This could be potentially confusing:
> How so? If it does named parameters, why not all?
There's no reason not to allow the year parameter to be named. What
I think it shouldn't have is a default. OTOH I see no good reason
not to allow the other ones to have defaults. (We presumably want
timezone to default to the system timezone setting, but I wonder how
we should make that work --- should an empty string be treated as
meaning that?)
>> Similarly, to_timestamp() ...? Seems meaningless without at least a full
>> date and an hour.
> Agreed.
No, I think it's perfectly sane to allow month/day to default to 1
and h/m/s to zeroes.
I do think it might be a good idea to have two functions,
construct_timestamp yielding timestamptz and construct_date
yielding date (and needing only 3 args). When you only want
a date, having to use construct_timestamp and cast will be
awkward and much more expensive than is needed (timezone
rotations aren't real cheap).
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
