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 19:56:24 |
Message-ID: | 12254.1334001384@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:
> 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 where it really is the best way.
> You mean, having the constraint declaration rotate the timestamptz
> column to timestamp and then extract the epoch from that? If you go
> that route, then the queries that wish to take advantage of constraint
> exclusion would have to do likewise, which becomes ugly rather quickly.
No, I'm wondering why the partition constraints wouldn't just be
tstzcol >= '2012-04-01 00:00' and tstzcol < '2012-05-01 00:00'
or similar. What sort of constraint have you got in mind that is more
naturally expressed involving extract(epoch)? (And will the planner
think so too?)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-09 20:11:32 | Re: bug in fast-path locking |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-04-09 19:47:45 | should encoding names be quoted in error messages? |