On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:02:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net> writes:
> > Sinte we already have width_bucket, I'd argue this should go in core. If
> > someone's feeling adventurous, there should probably be a double
> > precision version as well. Hrm... and maybe text...
>
> It's not clear to me why we have width_bucket operating on numeric and
> not float8 --- that seems like an oversight, if not outright
> misunderstanding of the type hierarchy. But if we had the float8
> version, I think Jeremy's problem would be solved just by applying
> the float8 version to "extract(epoch from timestamp)". I don't really
> see the use-case for putting N versions of the function in there.
Well, it would be nice to have a timestamp version so that users didn't
have to keep typing "extract(epoch from timestamp)"... but yeah, I
suspect that would work fine for timestamps. For intervals I suspect you
could just convert to seconds (if we're going to add timestamps, it
seems like we should add intervals as well).
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
