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

From Gaetano Mendola
Subject Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd
Date
Msg-id 415E6A15.1090105@bigfoot.com
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>)
Responses Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd
List pgsql-hackers
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"

> 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.

I think that an initdb is not required but at least a script, released
only with the 8.0, that will update the catalogs could be usefull.



Regards
Gaetano Mendola



pgsql-hackers by date:

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