From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Patch: shouldn't timezone(text, timestamp[tz]) be STABLE? |
Date: | 2021-09-06 10:10:01 |
Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TN-9OJWbkmsYLmm8vgX-zZZXdUGSEzrXWHv0Y-v5BE66g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> BTW, it's customary to *not* include catversion bumps in submitted
> patches
Thanks, Tom.
> Anyway, attached is a revised patch that gets rid of the antique
> code, and it produces correct results AFAICT.
I tested your patch against the current master branch 78aa616b on
MacOS Catalina. I have nothing to add to the patch.
> I'm fairly unhappy now that we don't have any
> regression test coverage for this function.
Yep, that's unfortunate. I see several tests for `AT TIME ZONE`
syntax, which is a syntax sugar to timezone() with timestamp[tz]
arguments. But considering how `timetz` type is broken in the first
place [1], I'm not surprised few people feel motivated to do anything
related to it. Do you think there is a possibility that one day we may
be brave enough to get rid of this type?
[1]: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Don%27t_Do_This#Don.27t_use_timetz
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-09-06 10:34:40 | Re: [BUG] Failed Assertion in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() |
Previous Message | r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com | 2021-09-06 10:06:37 | RE: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |