Re: ago(interval) → timestamptz - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nishant Sharma
Subject Re: ago(interval) → timestamptz
Date
Msg-id CADrsxdayT2ckyehF9v5UY1GEVHoZ=oE161tE0yo0dYqYP8nPcA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: ago(interval) → timestamptz  (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: Fix pg_stat_wal_receiver to show CONNECTING status
List pgsql-hackers
Thanks for the patch!

Thanks for the patch!

My views/opinion on the thread:-

1) I see no capability/logical gains, just aesthetic gains.

2) If we can think of ago(), why not a future equivalent? This creates an asymmetry in the patch (ex: for checking future expiration dates, etc..). Using ago('-1') for such cases looks funny, as Andreas already mentioned in a previous comment.

3) It's not that users would be stuck if it's not there, like already mentioned alternative 'current_timestamp - INTERVAL '1' DAY' by Laurenz or say 'current_timestamp + INTERVAL '1' DAY' for future cases.


Regards,                                        
Nishant Sharma,
EDB, Pune.
https://www.enterprisedb.com/
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Xuneng Zhou
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG: ReadStream look-ahead exhausts local buffers when effective_io_concurrency>=64
Next
From: Shlok Kyal
Date:
Subject: Re: Support EXCEPT for ALL SEQUENCES publications