| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Fedorov <petr(dot)fedorov(at)phystech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch |
| Date: | 2020-05-25 13:28:54 |
| Message-ID: | ee683994-8f7c-aded-be43-543e66e68b94@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-12-02 23:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I'm not an expert in floating point math but hopefully it means that no
>> type change is required - double precision can handle it.
> Me neither, but the SQL standard requires us to use an exact numeric
> type, so it's wrong on that level by definition.
I looked into this (changing the return types of date_part()/extract()
from float8 to numeric).
One problem (other than perhaps performance, tbd.) is that this would no
longer allow processing infinite timestamps, since numeric does not
support infinity. It could be argued that running extract() on infinite
timestamps isn't very useful, but it's something to consider explicitly.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-25 13:43:32 | Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2020-05-25 08:39:17 | BUG #16459: YUM pgdg11-updates-debuginfo repository missing repodata/repomd.xml for RHEL8* |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Victor Yegorov | 2020-05-25 13:41:49 | Re: Failure to create GiST on ltree column |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2020-05-25 13:02:04 | Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely() |