From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | braiamp+pg(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not |
Date: | 2023-06-29 17:45:36 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwY9XtAbSmRA2VZ2eHEZmktT2oDqqMbQKR=fsJfosmWX8w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:36 AM PG Bug reporting form <
noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 18007
> Logged by: Braiam Peguero
> Email address: braiamp+pg(at)gmail(dot)com
> PostgreSQL version: 15.3
> Operating system: Debian
> Description:
>
> There's no much difference between timestamp and dateT00:00:00.000, yet
> using age(date, date)
There is no "age(date, date)" function. Only age(timestamp, timestamp)
for some reason internally doesn't type coerce
> correctly into the appropriated types.
Nope, type coercion happens before the function call, while figuring out
which function signature to choose.
> I remember that on a previous
> versions (not sure if it was 14) this wasn't the case, so I would consider
> this a regression.
>
You haven't provided any code demonstrating what you think is incorrect.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-06-29 17:52:42 | Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not |
Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2023-06-29 17:08:25 | BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not |