From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals |
Date: | 2021-04-10 12:53:28 |
Message-ID: | CAFBsxsGW=pHSitw5gY=CP1ctBAuz8+cFXiZkiB2fZXkuUh_6xQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 7:43 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 30.03.21 18:06, John Naylor wrote:
> > Currently, when the origin is after the input, the result is the
> > timestamp at the end of the bin, rather than the beginning as expected.
> > The attached puts the result consistently at the beginning of the bin.
>
> In the patch
>
> + if (origin > timestamp && stride_usecs > 1)
> + tm_delta -= stride_usecs;
>
> is the condition stride_usecs > 1 really necessary? My assessment is
> that it's not, in which case it would be better to omit it.
Without the condition, the case of 1 microsecond will fail to be a no-op.
This case has no practical use, but it still must work correctly, just as
date_trunc('microsecond', input) does.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-04-10 12:54:15 | Re: Replication slot stats misgivings |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-04-10 12:53:04 | Re: Replication slot stats misgivings |