| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Date: | 2012-01-25 15:35:47 |
| Message-ID: | 28063.1327505747@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> Why aren't the 3rd date_parts the same in both cases? I mean - I see that they
> are adjusted due to timezone, but why is it happening?
Given a timestamp without time zone, timestamp_part('epoch') assumes
that it is in session timezone, and rotates it back to UTC so as to
satisfy the expectation that epoch values start from zero at midnight
UTC. In short, the calculation you're showing does the zone correction
an extra time. Don't do that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-25 15:37:27 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-25 15:22:25 | Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-25 15:37:27 | Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-25 15:23:14 | Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements |