Li Japin writes:
> Thanks for your confirm. Is there anything I can do?
No, I've got it.
In adding the test coverage I spoke of, I thought we should allow
the date_part tests to check all the entries in timestamp[tz]_tbl
not just those around current time, and I found an independent
problem:
Thanks for your confirm. Is there anything I can do?
On Dec 12, 2019, at 11:13 PM, Tom Lane
mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
Ah, after looking in the git history, not quite that ancient:
this duplication dates to commit 258ee1b63, which moved these
switch cases from the "if (type == RESERV)"
I wrote:
> Li Japin writes:
>> I find there is a duplicate function call on timestamp2tm in
>> timestamptz_part and timestamp_part.
>> Is that necessary? I remove the latter one and it also works.
> Huh. I do believe you're right. Must be an ancient copy-and-pas
Li Japin writes:
> I find there is a duplicate function call on timestamp2tm in timestamptz_part
> and timestamp_part.
> Is that necessary? I remove the latter one and it also works.
Huh. I do believe you're right. Must be an ancient copy-and-paste
mistake?
Hi,
I find there is a duplicate function call on timestamp2tm in timestamptz_part
and timestamp_part.
Is that necessary? I remove the latter one and it also works.
Best,
Japin.
remove-duplicate-timestamp2tm-function-call.patch
Description: remove-duplicate-timestamp2tm-function-call.patch
