Re: Unexpected behaviour of date_part - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Unexpected behaviour of date_part
Date
Msg-id 17271.1246371729@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unexpected behaviour of date_part  (Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>)
List pgsql-general
Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes:
> The <datetime value expression> isn't '2009 ... +11', it's the absolute
> time that string represents. It doesn't in fact have a time-zone
> component except in the context of your locale settings.

> I don't know if we do follow the standard here though - not read it through.

The spec does appear to contemplate that the timezone be represented
separately.  We've discussed this in the past but there's not been a lot
of enthusiasm for changing it ... aside from the work involved, it would
mean doubling the space required for a timestamptz value (because of
alignment considerations).

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Kaloyan Iliev
Date:
Subject: Postgresql and punycode(IDN)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: