Re: Unexpected casts while using date_trunc()
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unexpected casts while using date_trunc() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5099.1527259315@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unexpected casts while using date_trunc() (Chris Bandy <bandy.chris@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Chris Bandy <bandy.chris@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/24/18 2:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes: >>> There's also the option of adding an explicit function >>> date_trunc(text,date) returns date, which is a workaround that I (and >>> probably quite a few other people) have used. > Are we in agreement that the return type should be date? That is a good question, actually. That would be a larger behavior change than just avoiding the undesired conversion to TZ. I had imagined this as just being equivalent to date_trunc(text, date::timestamp). Casting the result back down to date seems safe, though. Another thing to consider is that the effective range of date is wider than timestamp's, meaning coerce-to-timestamp can fail. Is it worth providing a whole additional code path so we never coerce the date to timestamp at all? I'd tend to think not, but perhaps somebody wants to argue differently. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: