Re: Followup Timestamp to timestamp with TZ conversion - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Followup Timestamp to timestamp with TZ conversion
Date
Msg-id 795934.1626980947@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Followup Timestamp to timestamp with TZ conversion  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I agree that it doesn't follow in general. I think it does in the case
> of timestamp and timestamptz, because I don't think either the choice
> of time zone or the fact that we're reckoning relative to a time zone
> can change which of two timestamps is considered earlier. However, I
> think the only infrastructure we have for proving that is to look to
> see whether it's the same operator family in both cases. Because
> timestamp_ops and timestamptz_ops are separate, that doesn't help
> here.

Right.  It would in fact work for these two types, but we do not have
infrastructure that would allow us to know that.  I'm not sure about
your idea that "same operator family" is enough.

(Even for these two types, while a plain btree index should be fine,
I think it wouldn't be hard to construct expression indexes that
would not be compatible.  So there's a lot of worms in that can.)

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)