Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1576665.1688063087@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Braiam <braiamp@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 1:52 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> There is no age(date, date) function. What we have is age(timestamp, >> timestamp) and age(timestamptz, timestamptz), so the parser has to >> choose which type to coerce to --- and it prefers timestamptz. > According to \df+ age both timestamptz and timestamp are immutable: True, but not very relevant: it's the coercion from date that's giving you trouble. > So, whatever type is coerced into pre-function evaluation comes > with strange results. I'm not aware of a way that I can see what > kind of type is being coerced into. EXPLAIN will show that, eg =# explain verbose select age(current_date, current_date); QUERY PLAN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result (cost=0.00..0.02 rows=1 width=16) Output: age((CURRENT_DATE)::timestamp with time zone, (CURRENT_DATE)::timestamp with time zone) (2 rows) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: