Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Anastasia Lubennikova |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8) |
Date | |
Msg-id | 56D9B655.5060608@postgrespro.ru Whole thread Raw |
In response to | [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8) (Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.burovoy@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8)
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
27.02.2016 09:57, Vitaly Burovoy:<br /><blockquote cite="mid:CAKOSWN=qbbnF_oRue4rfsMmWb+7wkBN6fq5XNHgt5vR0TiAA5g@mail.gmail.com"type="cite"><pre wrap="">Hello, Hackers! I worked on a patch[1] allows "EXTRACT(epoch FROM +-Inf::timestamp[tz])" to return "+-Inf::float8". There is an opposite function "to_timestamp(float8)" which now defined as: SELECT ('epoch'::timestamptz + $1 * '1 second'::interval) </pre></blockquote><br /> Hi, <br /> thank you for the patches.<br /> Could you explain, whether they depend on each other?<br/><br /><blockquote cite="mid:CAKOSWN=qbbnF_oRue4rfsMmWb+7wkBN6fq5XNHgt5vR0TiAA5g@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><prewrap="">Since intervals do not support infinity values, it is impossible to do something like: SELECT to_timestamp('infinity'::float8); ... which is not good. Supporting of such converting is in the TODO list[2] (by "converting between infinity timestamp and float8"). </pre></blockquote><br /> You mention intervals here, and TODO item definitely says about 'infinity' interval,<br /> whilepatch and all the following discussion concerns to timestamps.<br /> Is it a typo or I misunderstood something important?<br /> I assumed that following query will work, but it isn't. Could you clarify that?<br /> select to_timestamp('infinity'::interval);<br/><br /><blockquote cite="mid:CAKOSWN=qbbnF_oRue4rfsMmWb+7wkBN6fq5XNHgt5vR0TiAA5g@mail.gmail.com"type="cite"><pre wrap="">Proposed patch implementsit. There is an other patch in the CF[3] 2016-03 implements checking of timestamp[tz] for being in allowed range. Since it is wise to set (fix) the upper boundary of timestamp[tz]s, I've included the file "src/include/datatype/timestamp.h" from there to check that an input value and a result are in the allowed range. There is no changes in a documentation because allowed range is the same as officially supported[4] (i.e. until 294277 AD). </pre></blockquote><br /> I think that you should update documentation. At least description of epoch on this page:<br /><ahref="http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html">http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html</a></a><br /><p>Hereis how you can convert an epoch value back to a time stamp:<pre class="SCREEN">SELECT TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE 'epoch'+ 982384720.12 * INTERVAL '1 second'; </pre><p>(The <code class="FUNCTION">to_timestamp</code> function encapsulates the above conversion.)<br /> More thoughtsabout the patch:<br /><br /> 1. When I copy value from hints for min and max values (see examples below), it worksfine for min, while max still leads to error.<br /> It comes from the check "if (seconds >= epoch_ubound)". I wonder,whether you should change hint message? <br /><br /> select to_timestamp(-210866803200.000000);<br /> to_timestamp <br /> ---------------------------------<br /> 4714-11-24 02:30:17+02:30:17 BC<br /> (1 row)<br /><br/><br /> select to_timestamp(9224318016000.000000);<br /> ERROR: UNIX epoch out of range: "9224318016000.000000"<br/> HINT: Maximal UNIX epoch value is "9224318016000.000000"<br /><br /> 2. There is a comment aboutJULIAN_MAXYEAR inaccuracy in timestamp.h:<br /><br /> * IS_VALID_JULIAN checks the minimum date exactly, but is a bitsloppy<br /> * about the maximum, since it's far enough out to not be especially<br /> * interesting.<br /><br /> Maybeyou can expand it?<br /> - Is JULIAN_MAXYEAR4STAMPS helps to avoid overflow in all possible cases?<br /> - Why do weneed to hold both definitions? I suppose, it's a matter of backward compatibility, isn't it?<br /><br /> 3. (nitpicking)I don't sure about "4STAMPS" suffix. "4" is nice abbreviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me.<br /><preclass="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Anastasia Lubennikova Postgres Professional: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.postgrespro.com">http://www.postgrespro.com</a> The Russian Postgres Company</pre>
pgsql-hackers by date: