Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable?
Date
Msg-id 20120827150755.GK11088@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:30:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> writes:
> > anyway - the point is that in \df date_part(, timestamp) says it's
> > immutable, while it is not.
>
> Hmm, you're right.  I thought we'd fixed that way back when, but
> obviously not.  Or maybe the current behavior of the epoch case
> postdates that.

Has this been addressed?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Caching for stable expressions with constant arguments v6
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Minor "pre-bug" in gram.y for DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY IF_P EXISTS