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
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
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
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
preferably I would see extract( epoch from timestamp ) to be really
immutable, i.e. (in my opinion) it should treat incoming data as UTC
- for epoch calculation.
Alternatively - perhaps epoch extraction should be moved to specialized
function, which would have swapped mutability:
We can't
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
preferably I would see extract( epoch from timestamp ) to be really
immutable, i.e. (in my opinion) it should treat incoming data as UTC
- for epoch calculation.
Alternatively - perhaps epoch extraction should be moved to
hubert depesz lubaczewski dep...@depesz.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
We can't have functions which are immutable or not depending on their
inputs. That way lies madness.
but this is exactly what's happening now.
Well, the current marking is
On 1/30/12 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
hubert depesz lubaczewski dep...@depesz.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
We can't have functions which are immutable or not depending on their
inputs. That way lies madness.
but this is exactly what's happening
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 1/30/12 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, the current marking is clearly incorrect. What to do about that
is a bit less clear --- should we downgrade the marking, or change the
function's behavior so that it really is immutable?
AFAIK, the only case
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.
