From: | Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: time conversion fuinctions |
Date: | 2006-10-07 18:09:09 |
Message-ID: | 1160244549.4482.28.camel@zorro.isa-geek.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 2006-10-07 at 11:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com> writes:
> > Is this the expected result?
>
> timestamp_date() currently returns NULL if the timestamp is infinity.
> Since we don't have any representation for infinity in the date type,
I understand, you mean 'internal representation'. Since it's quite
obvious, that 'external representation' can be '+/-infinity', just like
it's the case with the timestamp.
> this is pretty much its only alternative other than throwing an error
> (which might indeed be a saner behavior). There is a TODO item to
> support +/-infinity in dates, which would be the correct long-term
> solution.
I see. Provided the internal representation must change to get there,
some immediate measure (like faulting the statement) might be a good
idea ideed.
--
-R
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Staubo | 2006-10-07 19:31:25 | Re: performace review |
Previous Message | Tomi NA | 2006-10-07 18:06:38 | performace review |