Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruno Wolff III
Subject Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
Date
Msg-id 20041002005008.GA24766@wolff.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 18:53:03 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> 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.

As long as it is mentioned in the release notes, it doesn't seem worth
forcing an initdb.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1