Re: AT TIME ZONE and interval arguments

From: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Craig Ringer *EXTERN*" <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AT TIME ZONE and interval arguments
Date: 2013-01-31 10:27:09
Message-ID: A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B057AD9C1@ntex2010a.host.magwien.gv.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'm mildly thrown by this:
>
> regress=> SELECT TIME '04:00' AT TIME ZONE '01:00';
> timezone
> -------------
> 19:00:00-01
> (1 row)
>
> regress=> SELECT TIME '04:00' AT TIME ZONE (INTERVAL '01:00');
> timezone
> -------------
> 21:00:00+01
> (1 row)
>
> regress=> SELECT TIME '04:00' AT TIME ZONE (TEXT '01:00');
> timezone
> -------------
> 19:00:00-01
> (1 row)
>
>
> and was wondering if anyone knows why the sense of the offset is
> reversed for typed intervals vs bare literal or text. Is this another
> one of the issues caused by the various standards' disagreements about +
> vs - time offsets?

The function that implements the "text" case has this comment:

/* timestamp_zone()
* Encode timestamp type with specified time zone.
* This function is just timestamp2timestamptz() except instead of
* shifting to the global timezone, we shift to the specified timezone.
* This is different from the other AT TIME ZONE cases because instead
* of shifting to a _to_ a new time zone, it sets the time to _be_ the
* specified timezone.
*/

The comment was introduced in commits 5ddeffb676e6bb64b82fc98576f3fe54f8671527
and 3dbbbbf8e98329e1eea9920436defc64af3594d3, there is a discussion
on -patches:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/slrnde2134.2k2r.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.net

I can't say if that's correct though.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Torello Querci 2013-01-31 10:56:40 Re: Windows Phone/Postgresql
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2013-01-31 10:06:23 Re: Optimizing query?