| 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 22:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20120125224639.GB2651@depesz.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:07:40PM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> Finally dawned on me. When you use 'at time zone' on a timestamp
> with tz it strips the tz which then allows the value to be indexed
> because:
>
> -[ RECORD 5 ]-------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Schema | pg_catalog
> Name | date_part
> Result data type | double precision
> Argument data types | text, timestamp without time zone
> Type | normal
> Volatility | immutable
> Owner | postgres
> Language | internal
> Source code | timestamp_part
> Description | extract field from timestamp
yes, but it is not correct - the value is actually stable, and not
immutable.
Best regards,
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 | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-26 00:04:44 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-25 22:07:40 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-01-26 00:04:44 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-25 22:45:15 | Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families |