| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Bruno Wolff III" <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) |
| Date: | 2004-10-02 19:54:43 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4306882@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 02 October 2004 19:23
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: Bruno Wolff III; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Mislabeled timestamp functions (was
> Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
>
> > I'd prefer if all users of 8.0 were guaranteed to have the
> same catalog.
>
> Well, there's something to be said for that viewpoint too.
> Anyone else feel the same?
It makes sense to me. Especially with hordes of win32 newbies gathering
at the door it'll be one less variable to think about.
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-10-02 20:04:51 | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-10-02 19:17:43 | Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1 |