Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd
От | Gaetano Mendola |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 415E6A15.1090105@bigfoot.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > Do you see any other mislabelings? I don't but I think that the concept of immutable shall be expanded. I mean I can use safely a date_trunc immutable in a query ( I think this is a sort of "immutable per statement" ) but not in a index definition ( the index mantainance is affected by the current timezonesettings ). So may be another modifier shall be introduced that reflect the "immutable per statement" > What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force an > initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be fixed > in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now without > noticing, so it doesn't seem like a serious enough bug to force a > post-beta initdb ... to me anyway. I think that an initdb is not required but at least a script, released only with the 8.0, that will update the catalogs could be usefull. Regards Gaetano Mendola
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: