Re: Unexpected behaviour of date_part

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unexpected behaviour of date_part
Date: 2009-06-30 14:22:09
Message-ID: 17271.1246371729@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> The <datetime value expression> isn't '2009 ... +11', it's the absolute
> time that string represents. It doesn't in fact have a time-zone
> component except in the context of your locale settings.

> I don't know if we do follow the standard here though - not read it through.

The spec does appear to contemplate that the timezone be represented
separately. We've discussed this in the past but there's not been a lot
of enthusiasm for changing it ... aside from the work involved, it would
mean doubling the space required for a timestamptz value (because of
alignment considerations).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-06-30 14:26:43 Re:
Previous Message Kaloyan Iliev 2009-06-30 13:10:02 Postgresql and punycode(IDN)