Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
Date
Msg-id 28560.1248894058@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I agree that we should change it, but should we back-patch it, and if so
>> how far?

> Well at least to 8.4 so someone who has just always been using
> downloaded binaries or binaries compiled with the default
> configuration continues to get the same behaviour.

> My inclination would be to backpatch it further back. But I'm not 100%
> sure either.

Given the lack of prior complaints, I'm thinking just to 8.4 is a good
compromise.  Any objections out there?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Field
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.4 win32 shared memory patch
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string