Re: Patch: shouldn't timezone(text, timestamp[tz]) be STABLE? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Aleksander Alekseev
Subject Re: Patch: shouldn't timezone(text, timestamp[tz]) be STABLE?
Date
Msg-id CAJ7c6TN-9OJWbkmsYLmm8vgX-zZZXdUGSEzrXWHv0Y-v5BE66g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch: shouldn't timezone(text, timestamp[tz]) be STABLE?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Patch: shouldn't timezone(text, timestamp[tz]) be STABLE?
List pgsql-hackers
> BTW, it's customary to *not* include catversion bumps in submitted
> patches

Thanks, Tom.

> Anyway, attached is a revised patch that gets rid of the antique
> code, and it produces correct results AFAICT.

I tested your patch against the current master branch 78aa616b on
MacOS Catalina. I have nothing to add to the patch.

> I'm fairly unhappy now that we don't have any
> regression test coverage for this function.

Yep, that's unfortunate. I see several tests for `AT TIME ZONE`
syntax, which is a syntax sugar to timezone() with timestamp[tz]
arguments. But considering how `timetz` type is broken in the first
place [1], I'm not surprised few people feel motivated to do anything
related to it. Do you think there is a possibility that one day we may
be brave enough to get rid of this type?


[1]: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Don%27t_Do_This#Don.27t_use_timetz

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG] Failed Assertion in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()