From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
Date: | 2012-01-25 16:57:50 |
Message-ID: | 20120125165750.GA28055@depesz.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:54:44AM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > Personally, I think that extract(epoch from timestamp) should assume
> > that the timestamp is UTC.
>
> What if it isn't?
then you can always correct it with "at time zone 'some specific time
zone'"
but you can't correct it the other way.
> > Or that there should be a way to do it - by "it" i mean - extract epoch
> > value from timestamp value in immutable way.
>
> Have a timezone value on the timestamp. If the data you are working with is
> stored as timestamp with time zone then the timestamps represent a point in
> time.
I do have. But you can't have index on epoch from timestamptz.
and while you can have iundex on epoch from timestamp, it is not
correct.
depesz
--
The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact with it.
http://depesz.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2012-01-25 17:38:44 | Re: Logging access to data in database table |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-25 16:54:44 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-01-25 17:00:37 | Re: some longer, larger pgbench tests with various performance-related patches |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-25 16:57:22 | Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks |