| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Revisiting extract(epoch from timestamp) |
| Date: | 2012-04-09 18:38:21 |
| Message-ID: | 11131.1333996701@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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 use contorted expressions ...
> An immutable extract_epoch(timestamptz) would fit the bill.
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 where it really is the best way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-09 18:42:24 | Re: bug in fast-path locking |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-04-09 18:35:47 | Re: Regarding column reordering project for GSoc 2012 |