Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
 Thanks.  I wasn't sure about the error message returned when times are
 outside range; how about this instead?  I'm not wedded to this approach
 -- I can return to yours if this one isn't liked -- but I think the
 more specific messages are better.  I realize this is inconsistent with
 the make_date case which always displays the full date instead of
 specific fields, but I think it's more likely that someone is doing
 arithmetic to enter time fields than date.  (Anyway maybe this is not an
 important enough issue to create more work for translators.)

I thought that last point was the most important one: doing it like that
would create more work for translators than it's worth.  There's no reason
to think that people can't figure out which field it's unhappy about.
And what if more than one field is wrong?  You'd be exposing an
implementation detail about the order in which the tests are made.

Another issue with the patch as submitted was that make_date with a
negative year value behaved unreasonably.  I made it throw error, but
you could also argue that say -44 ought to mean 44 BC.  (Year zero
should be disallowed in any case, of course.)  It would take a few
extra lines of code to do that.

Committed with those changes and some other cosmetic adjustments.

This doesn't really finish the TODO item, as that contemplated a
make_timestamp() function as well; but I don't see a reason not
to commit what we've got.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-10-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Jeevan Chalke escribió:
 On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.comwrote:
 
  thank you,
 
  I have no comments
 
 Assigned it to committer.

Hm, these functions are marked as STABLE, right?  Why aren't they
immutable?

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training  Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-10-11 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello


2013/10/11 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com

 Jeevan Chalke escribió:
  On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   thank you,
  
   I have no comments
 
  Assigned it to committer.

 Hm, these functions are marked as STABLE, right?  Why aren't they
 immutable?


It was my mistake -  I was confused from timestamp with time zone type,
what has zero related to date and time.

fixed to immutable,
fixed duplicate oid

Regards

Pavel



 --
 Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training  Services



make_date_v5.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-10-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Pavel Stehule escribió:

 It was my mistake -  I was confused from timestamp with time zone type,
 what has zero related to date and time.
 
 fixed to immutable,
 fixed duplicate oid

Thanks.  I wasn't sure about the error message returned when times are
outside range; how about this instead?  I'm not wedded to this approach
-- I can return to yours if this one isn't liked -- but I think the
more specific messages are better.  I realize this is inconsistent with
the make_date case which always displays the full date instead of
specific fields, but I think it's more likely that someone is doing
arithmetic to enter time fields than date.  (Anyway maybe this is not an
important enough issue to create more work for translators.)

+   if (tm_hour  0 || tm_hour  HOURS_PER_DAY)
+   ereport(ERROR,
+   (errcode(ERRCODE_DATETIME_FIELD_OVERFLOW),
+errmsg(hours field in time value out of range: \%02d\,
+   tm_hour)));
+
+   if (tm_min  0 || tm_min  MINS_PER_HOUR - 1)
+   ereport(ERROR,
+   (errcode(ERRCODE_DATETIME_FIELD_OVERFLOW),
+errmsg(minutes field in time value out of range: \%02d\,
+   tm_min)));
+
+   if (sec  0.0 || sec  (float8) SECS_PER_MINUTE)
+   ereport(ERROR,
+   (errcode(ERRCODE_DATETIME_FIELD_OVERFLOW),
+errmsg(seconds field in time value out of range: \%0*.*f\,
+   MAX_TIME_PRECISION + 3,
+   MAX_TIME_PRECISION, fabs(sec;
+
+   /* test for  24:00:00 */
+   if ((tm_hour == HOURS_PER_DAY  (tm_min  0 || sec  0.0)))
+   ereport(ERROR,
+   (errcode(ERRCODE_DATETIME_FIELD_OVERFLOW),
+errmsg(time value out of range: \%02d:%02d:%0*.*f\,
+   tm_hour, tm_min,
+   MAX_TIME_PRECISION + 3,
+   MAX_TIME_PRECISION, fabs(sec;

Other than that (and fixing regression tests as appropriate), I think
the attached, which has mild corrections over your v5, is ready to
commit.  (You had one missing semicolon in the float timestamp case.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training  Services
*** a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
***
*** 6669,6674  SELECT SUBSTRING('XY1234Z', 'Y*?([0-9]{1,3})');
--- 6669,6716 
 row
  entry
   indexterm
+   primarymake_date/primary
+  /indexterm
+  literal
+ function
+  make_date(parameteryear/parameter typeint/type,
+  parametermonth/parameter typeint/type,
+  parameterday/parameter typeint/type)
+ /function
+  /literal
+ /entry
+ entrytypedate/type/entry
+ entry
+  Create date from year, month and day fields
+ /entry
+ entryliteralmake_date(2013, 7, 15)/literal/entry
+ entryliteral2013-07-15/literal/entry
+/row
+ 
+row
+ entry
+  indexterm
+   primarymake_time/primary
+  /indexterm
+  literal
+   function
+make_time(parameterhour/parameter typeint/type,
+parametermin/parameter typeint/type,
+parametersec/parameter typedouble precision/type)
+   /function
+  /literal
+ /entry
+ entrytypetime/type/entry
+ entry
+  Create time from hour, minutes and second fields
+ /entry
+ entryliteralmake_time(8, 15, 23.5)/literal/entry
+ entryliteral08:15:23.5/literal/entry
+/row
+ 
+row
+ entry
+  indexterm
primarynow/primary
   /indexterm
   literalfunctionnow()/function/literal
*** a/src/backend/utils/adt/date.c
--- b/src/backend/utils/adt/date.c
***
*** 2729,2731  timetz_izone(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
--- 2729,2815 
  
  	PG_RETURN_TIMETZADT_P(result);
  }
+ 
+ /*
+  * make_date()
+  *   date constructor
+  */
+ Datum
+ make_date(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+ {
+ 	struct pg_tm tm;
+ 	DateADT		date;
+ 	int			dterr;
+ 
+ 	tm.tm_year = PG_GETARG_INT32(0);
+ 	tm.tm_mon = PG_GETARG_INT32(1);
+ 	tm.tm_mday = PG_GETARG_INT32(2);
+ 
+ 	dterr = ValidateDate(DTK_DATE_M, true, false, false, tm);
+ 
+ 	if (dterr != 0)
+ 		ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DATETIME_FIELD_OVERFLOW),
+  errmsg(date field value out of range: \%d-%d-%d\,
+ 		tm.tm_year, tm.tm_mon, tm.tm_mday)));
+ 
+ 	if (!IS_VALID_JULIAN(tm.tm_year, tm.tm_mon, tm.tm_mday))
+ 		ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DATETIME_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
+  errmsg(date out of range: \%d-%d-%d\,
+ 		tm.tm_year, tm.tm_mon, tm.tm_mday)));
+ 
+ 	date = date2j(tm.tm_year, tm.tm_mon, tm.tm_mday) - POSTGRES_EPOCH_JDATE;
+ 
+ 	PG_RETURN_DATEADT(date);
+ }
+ 
+ /*
+  * make_time()
+  *   time constructor
+  */
+ Datum
+ make_time(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+ {
+ 	int		tm_hour = 

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-09-19 Thread Jeevan Chalke
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hello

 thank you,

 I have no comments


Thanks.

Assigned it to committer.



 Regards

 Pavel

 --
Jeevan B Chalke


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-09-18 Thread Jeevan Chalke
Hi Pavel,

I have reviewed your patch.

Patch looks excellent and code changes match with similar constructs
elsewhere. That's great.

However, it was not applying with git apply command but able to apply it
with patch -p1 with some offsets. make and make install was smooth too.
Regression suite didn't complain as expected.

I did my own testing and din't get any issues with that. Code walk-through
was good too.

I was little bit worried as we are allowing 60 for seconds in which case we
are wrapping it to next minute and setting sec to 0. But this logic was not
true for minutes. There we are throwing an error when min = 60.

But I don't blame on this patch as other constructs does same too. Like
select time '15:60:20' throws an error where as select time '15:30:60'
does not.

However, in attached patch I have fixed the typo identified by Alvaro.

Please have a look before I submit it to the committer.

Thanks



On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hello

 2013/7/12 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
  There is a small inconsistency:
 
  select time '12:30:57.123456789';
 
  gives
 
  12:30:57.123457
 
  but
 
  select make_time(12, 30, 57.123456789);
 
  gives
 
  12:30:57.123456

 fixed - see attached patch

 Regards

 Pavel

 


 --
 Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
 To make changes to your subscription:
 http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers




-- 
Jeevan B Chalke
Principal Software Engineer, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Phone: +91 20 30589500

Website: www.enterprisedb.com
EnterpriseDB Blog: http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/
Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/enterprisedb

This e-mail message (and any attachment) is intended for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This message contains
information from EnterpriseDB Corporation that may be privileged,
confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient or authorized to receive this for the intended
recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, retention, archiving, or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.


make_date_v4.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-09-18 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello

thank you,

I have no comments

Regards

Pavel


2013/9/18 Jeevan Chalke jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com

 Hi Pavel,

 I have reviewed your patch.

 Patch looks excellent and code changes match with similar constructs
 elsewhere. That's great.

 However, it was not applying with git apply command but able to apply it
 with patch -p1 with some offsets. make and make install was smooth too.
 Regression suite didn't complain as expected.

 I did my own testing and din't get any issues with that. Code walk-through
 was good too.

 I was little bit worried as we are allowing 60 for seconds in which case we
 are wrapping it to next minute and setting sec to 0. But this logic was not
 true for minutes. There we are throwing an error when min = 60.

 But I don't blame on this patch as other constructs does same too. Like
 select time '15:60:20' throws an error where as select time '15:30:60'
 does not.

 However, in attached patch I have fixed the typo identified by Alvaro.

 Please have a look before I submit it to the committer.

 Thanks



 On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hello

 2013/7/12 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
  There is a small inconsistency:
 
  select time '12:30:57.123456789';
 
  gives
 
  12:30:57.123457
 
  but
 
  select make_time(12, 30, 57.123456789);
 
  gives
 
  12:30:57.123456

 fixed - see attached patch

 Regards

 Pavel

 


 --
 Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
 To make changes to your subscription:
 http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers




 --
 Jeevan B Chalke
 Principal Software Engineer, Product Development
 EnterpriseDB Corporation
 The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

 Phone: +91 20 30589500

 Website: www.enterprisedb.com
 EnterpriseDB Blog: http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/
 Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/enterprisedb

 This e-mail message (and any attachment) is intended for the use of the
 individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This message contains
 information from EnterpriseDB Corporation that may be privileged,
 confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
 not the intended recipient or authorized to receive this for the intended
 recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, retention, archiving, or
 copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
 this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail
 and delete this message.



Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-09-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Pavel Stehule escribió:

 fixed - see attached patch

There's a typo tange in some error messages, which has found its way
to the regression tests.

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training  Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-13 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello

2013/7/12 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
 There is a small inconsistency:

 select time '12:30:57.123456789';

 gives

 12:30:57.123457

 but

 select make_time(12, 30, 57.123456789);

 gives

 12:30:57.123456

fixed - see attached patch

Regards

Pavel




make_date-v3.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
There is a small inconsistency:

select time '12:30:57.123456789';

gives

12:30:57.123457

but

select make_time(12, 30, 57.123456789);

gives

12:30:57.123456



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-08 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello

updated patch

+ more precious validity check

Regards

Pavel

2013/7/3 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
 Hello


 So my vote is for make_time(hour int, min int, sec float8).


 so here is a patch

 Regards

 Pavel



 regards, tom lane


make_date-v2.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Pavel Stehule
2013/7/2 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
 2013/7/1 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
 On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
 and it is a part of our ToDo: Add function to allow the creation of
 timestamps using parameters

 so we can have a functions with signatures

 I would just name them date(...), time(...), etc.

I tested this names, and I got a syntax error for function time

we doesn't support real type constructors, and parser doesn't respect syntax.

so we can use a different names, or we can try to implement type
constructor functions.

Comments

Regards

Pavel



 +1

 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_date(year int, month int DEFAULT
 1, day int DEFAULT 1) RETURNS date;

 I would not use default values for this one.


 I have no problem with it

 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
 DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);

 If we are using integer datetime storage, we shouldn't use floats to
 construct them.


 so possible signature signature should be

 CREATE FUNCTION time(hour int, mi int, sec int, used int) ??

 and

 CREATE FUNCTION timetz(hour int, mi int, sec int, isec int, tz int)

 ??

 Regards

 Pavel


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Pavel Stehule
2013/7/3 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
 2013/7/2 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
 2013/7/1 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
 On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
 and it is a part of our ToDo: Add function to allow the creation of
 timestamps using parameters

 so we can have a functions with signatures

 I would just name them date(...), time(...), etc.

 I tested this names, and I got a syntax error for function time

 we doesn't support real type constructors, and parser doesn't respect syntax.

 so we can use a different names, or we can try to implement type
 constructor functions.

constructor function - : A niladic SQL-invoked function of which
exactly one is implicitly specified for every structured type. An
invocation of the constructor function for data type
returns a value of the most specific type such that is not null ...

as minimum for Postgres - a possibility to implement function with
same name as type name.

Regards

Pavel
.


 Comments

 Regards

 Pavel



 +1

 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_date(year int, month int DEFAULT
 1, day int DEFAULT 1) RETURNS date;

 I would not use default values for this one.


 I have no problem with it

 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
 DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);

 If we are using integer datetime storage, we shouldn't use floats to
 construct them.


 so possible signature signature should be

 CREATE FUNCTION time(hour int, mi int, sec int, used int) ??

 and

 CREATE FUNCTION timetz(hour int, mi int, sec int, isec int, tz int)

 ??

 Regards

 Pavel


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Brendan Jurd
On 1 July 2013 17:47, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
 2013/6/29 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
 long time I am thinking about simple function for creating date or
 timestamp values based on numeric types without necessity to create
 format string.

 What do you think about this idea?
 I found so same idea was discussed three years ago

 http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14107.1276443...@sss.pgh.pa.us


I suggested something similar also:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi=W1wtcL7qR4PuQaQ=uoabmjsusz6qgjtucx...@mail.gmail.com

The thread I linked died off without reaching a consensus about what
the functions ought to be named, although Josh and Robert were
generally supportive of the idea.

The function signatures I have been using in my own C functions are:

* date(year int, month int, day int) returns date
* datetime(year int, month int, day int, hour int, minute int, second
int) returns timestamp


Cheers,
BJ


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello

2013/7/3 Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com:
 On 1 July 2013 17:47, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
 2013/6/29 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
 long time I am thinking about simple function for creating date or
 timestamp values based on numeric types without necessity to create
 format string.

 What do you think about this idea?
 I found so same idea was discussed three years ago

 http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14107.1276443...@sss.pgh.pa.us


 I suggested something similar also:

 http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi=W1wtcL7qR4PuQaQ=uoabmjsusz6qgjtucx...@mail.gmail.com

 The thread I linked died off without reaching a consensus about what
 the functions ought to be named, although Josh and Robert were
 generally supportive of the idea.

 The function signatures I have been using in my own C functions are:

 * date(year int, month int, day int) returns date
 * datetime(year int, month int, day int, hour int, minute int, second
 int) returns timestamp


I am thinking so for these functions exists some consensus - minimally
for function date(year, month, int) - I dream about this function
ten years :)

I am not sure about datetime:

a) we use timestamp name for same thing in pg
b) we can simply construct timestamp as sum of date + time, what is
little bit more practical (for me), because it doesn't use too wide
parameter list.

so my proposal is two new function date and time

but, because we doesn't support type constructor function, I don't
think so name date is good (in this moment)

MSSQL has function DATEFROMPARTS, TIMEFROMPARTS and DATETIMEFROMPARTS
MySQL has little bit obscure function MAKEDATE(year, dayinyear) and
MAKETIME(hour, min, sec)
Oracle and db2 has nothing similar

what do you think about names?

make_date
make_time

I don't would to use to_date, to_time functions, a) because these
functions use formatted input, b) we hold some compatibility with
Oracle.

Regards

Pavel Stehule




 Cheers,
 BJ


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Brendan Jurd
On 3 July 2013 21:41, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
 I am thinking so for these functions exists some consensus - minimally
 for function date(year, month, int) - I dream about this function
 ten years :)

 I am not sure about datetime:
 a) we use timestamp name for same thing in pg
 b) we can simply construct timestamp as sum of date + time, what is
 little bit more practical (for me), because it doesn't use too wide
 parameter list.

I agree.  I've got no issues with using date + time arithmetic to
build a timestamp.

 what do you think about names?

 make_date
 make_time

I am fine with those names.  'make', 'construct', 'build', etc. are
all reasonable verbs for what the functions do, but 'make' is nice and
short, and will be familiar to people who've used a 'mktime'.

 I don't would to use to_date, to_time functions, a) because these
 functions use formatted input, b) we hold some compatibility with
 Oracle.

Yes, I agree.

Cheers,
BJ


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut escribió:
 On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:

  CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
  DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);
 
 If we are using integer datetime storage, we shouldn't use floats to
 construct them.

I think this is wrong.  Datetime storage may be int, but since they're
microseconds underneath, we'd be unable to specify a full-resolution
timestamp if we didn't have float ms or integer µs.  So either the
seconds argument should allow fractions (probably not a good idea), or
we should have another integer argument for microseconds (not
milliseconds as the above signature implies).

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training  Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Pavel Stehule
2013/7/3 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
 Peter Eisentraut escribió:
 On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:

  CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
  DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);

 If we are using integer datetime storage, we shouldn't use floats to
 construct them.

 I think this is wrong.  Datetime storage may be int, but since they're
 microseconds underneath, we'd be unable to specify a full-resolution
 timestamp if we didn't have float ms or integer µs.  So either the
 seconds argument should allow fractions (probably not a good idea), or
 we should have another integer argument for microseconds (not
 milliseconds as the above signature implies).

so make_time(hour int, mi int, sec int, usec int DEFAULT 0)

Is good for all ?

Regards

Pavel



 --
 Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training  Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
 Peter Eisentraut escribió:
 On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
 DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);
 
 If we are using integer datetime storage, we shouldn't use floats to
 construct them.

 I think this is wrong.  Datetime storage may be int, but since they're
 microseconds underneath, we'd be unable to specify a full-resolution
 timestamp if we didn't have float ms or integer µs.  So either the
 seconds argument should allow fractions (probably not a good idea), or
 we should have another integer argument for microseconds (not
 milliseconds as the above signature implies).

FWIW, I'd vote for allowing the seconds to be fractional.  That's the
way the user perceives things:

regression=# select '12:34:56.789'::time;
 time 
--
 12:34:56.789
(1 row)

Moreover, an integer microseconds argument would be a shortsighted idea
because it wires the precision limit into the function API.  As long as
we make the seconds argument be float8, it will work fine even when the
underlying precision switches to, say, nanoseconds.

And lastly, those default arguments are a bad idea as well.  There's no
reasonable use-case for make_time(12); that's almost certainly an error.
Even more so for make_time().  While you could make some case for
make_time(12,34) being useful, I don't think it buys much compared
to writing out make_time(12,34,0), and having just one function
signature is that much less cognitive load on users.

So my vote is for make_time(hour int, min int, sec float8).

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Pavel Stehule
2013/7/3 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
 Peter Eisentraut escribió:
 On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
 DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);

 If we are using integer datetime storage, we shouldn't use floats to
 construct them.

 I think this is wrong.  Datetime storage may be int, but since they're
 microseconds underneath, we'd be unable to specify a full-resolution
 timestamp if we didn't have float ms or integer ľs.  So either the
 seconds argument should allow fractions (probably not a good idea), or
 we should have another integer argument for microseconds (not
 milliseconds as the above signature implies).

 FWIW, I'd vote for allowing the seconds to be fractional.  That's the
 way the user perceives things:

 regression=# select '12:34:56.789'::time;
  time
 --
  12:34:56.789
 (1 row)

 Moreover, an integer microseconds argument would be a shortsighted idea
 because it wires the precision limit into the function API.  As long as
 we make the seconds argument be float8, it will work fine even when the
 underlying precision switches to, say, nanoseconds.

 And lastly, those default arguments are a bad idea as well.  There's no
 reasonable use-case for make_time(12); that's almost certainly an error.
 Even more so for make_time().  While you could make some case for
 make_time(12,34) being useful, I don't think it buys much compared
 to writing out make_time(12,34,0), and having just one function
 signature is that much less cognitive load on users.


I had a plan use DEFAULT only for usec parameter (if it was used).
Seconds was mandatory parameter.

After tests on prototype I think so fractional sec is better. Separate
value (in usec) is really big number - not practical for hand writing

 So my vote is for make_time(hour int, min int, sec float8).

+1

Pavel

 regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-03 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello


 So my vote is for make_time(hour int, min int, sec float8).


so here is a patch

Regards

Pavel



 regards, tom lane


make_date.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
2013/7/1 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
 On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
 and it is a part of our ToDo: Add function to allow the creation of
 timestamps using parameters

 so we can have a functions with signatures

 I would just name them date(...), time(...), etc.


+1

 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_date(year int, month int DEFAULT
 1, day int DEFAULT 1) RETURNS date;

 I would not use default values for this one.


I have no problem with it

 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
 DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);

 If we are using integer datetime storage, we shouldn't use floats to
 construct them.


so possible signature signature should be

CREATE FUNCTION time(hour int, mi int, sec int, used int) ??

and

CREATE FUNCTION timetz(hour int, mi int, sec int, isec int, tz int)

??

Regards

Pavel


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-01 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello


2013/6/29 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
 Hello

 long time I am thinking about simple function for creating date or
 timestamp values based on numeric types without necessity to create
 format string.

 some like ansi_date(year, month, day) and ansi_timestamp(year, month,
 day, hour, minuts, sec, msec, offset)

 What do you think about this idea?
I found so same idea was discussed three years ago

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14107.1276443...@sss.pgh.pa.us

and it is a part of our ToDo: Add function to allow the creation of
timestamps using parameters

so we can have a functions with signatures

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_date(year int, month int DEFAULT
1, day int DEFAULT 1) RETURNS date;
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_timestap(year int, month int DEFAULT 
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_timestamp_with_timezone(year int,
month int DEFAULT1, ...

???

Regards

Pavel Stehule


 Regards

 Pavel Stehule


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
 and it is a part of our ToDo: Add function to allow the creation of
 timestamps using parameters
 
 so we can have a functions with signatures

I would just name them date(...), time(...), etc.

 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_date(year int, month int DEFAULT
 1, day int DEFAULT 1) RETURNS date;

I would not use default values for this one.

 CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_time(hour int DEFAULT 0, mi int
 DEFAULT 0, sec int DEFAULT 0, ms float DEFAULT 0.0);

If we are using integer datetime storage, we shouldn't use floats to
construct them.



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers