Re: Analysis Function

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: David Jarvis <thangalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Analysis Function
Date: 2010-06-14 13:59:33
Message-ID: 12072.1276523973@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 21:19, David Jarvis <thangalin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I prefer to_timestamp and to_date over the more verbose construct_timestamp.

> Yeah, I agree with that.

Those names are already taken. It will cause confusion (of both people
and machines) if you try to overload them with this.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andy Colson 2010-06-14 13:59:40 Re: Dead lock
Previous Message Andy Colson 2010-06-14 13:50:40 Re: query tuning help