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

From Bruno Wolff III
Subject Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd
Date
Msg-id 20041002200451.GA14830@wolff.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd  (Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>)
Responses Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:43:01 +0200, Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> 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"

There has been such a distinction for a major release or two. "Stable"
is how you mark a function that will return the same value within a
single transaction.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?)
Next
From: Chris Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: AIX and V8 beta 3