Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable?

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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