A long time ago, we had this bug report:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2003-02/msg00069.php
in consequence of which, I changed timestamp_part() so that it would
rotate a timestamp-without-timezone from the local timezone to GMT
before extracting the epoch offset (commit
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A long time ago, we had this bug report:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2003-02/msg00069.php
in consequence of which, I changed timestamp_part() so that it would
rotate a timestamp-without-timezone from the local
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
so that we could mark it immutable. On the other hand, it's not
entirely apparent why people would need to create indexes on the epoch
value rather than just indexing the timestamp itself
Well, it makes for smaller indexes if you don't
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-01/msg00649.php
The above-linked discussion also brings up a different point, which is
that extracting the epoch from a timestamptz is
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
so that we could mark it immutable. On the other hand, it's not
entirely apparent why people would need to create indexes on the epoch
value rather than just indexing the timestamp itself
Well, it makes for smaller indexes if you don't really
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun abr 09 15:04:10 -0300 2012:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-01/msg00649.php
The above-linked discussion also brings up a
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If somebody needs it I'd probably be in favor of doing it. I'm not
sure I'd do it on spec.
It would be useful to have a simple function to use with timestamp in
constraint exclusion without having to
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun abr 09 15:38:21 -0300 2012:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If somebody needs it I'd probably be in favor of doing it. I'm not
sure I'd do it on spec.
It would be useful to have a
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun abr 09 15:38:21 -0300 2012:
What exactly would you do with it there that you couldn't do more easily
and clearly with plain timestamp comparisons? I'm willing to be
convinced, but I want to see a case
