Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when
 extracting epoch
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <42b73d2d-da12-ba9f-570a-420e0cce19d9@phystech.edu>
 <CA+hUKGKgHUbFNKRhvodn4mVU-oqje+HA7jTg_XrWRo4UGhFoqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <18389.1575241151@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1c2262e2-6812-7baa-cbdd-63039db12952@phystech.edu>
 <CA+hUKGK+K8NyS57tU841m1tSF6ha3W0udN2dw_Hbc=D_0OPbmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ee683994-8f7c-aded-be43-543e66e68b94@2ndquadrant.com>
 <a3be61d9-f44b-7fce-3dc8-d700fdfb6f48@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CAFj8pRC8cgoiQMT235cky4Pa40gj=s0m3PftmaJLSt9MAiwj_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <be30c07c-3f7b-7c86-f1c5-d0858046b26f@2ndquadrant.com>
 <1551357.1599435992@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 Petr Fedorov <petr.fedorov@phystech.edu>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <097a4242-0748-98e3-06ab-ded1d366cd76@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:08:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1551357.1599435992@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-09-07 01:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Here is a new patch series version.
>> I have created a new internal function for converting integers to
>> numeric, to make the implementation a bit more elegant and compact.
> 
> I reviewed the 0002 patch, finding one bug (in int8_sum)

Ouch, no test coverage.  Should we perhaps remove this function, since 
it's obsolete and unused?

> and a few
> more calls of int8_numeric that could be converted.  I think the
> attached updated version is committable, and I'd recommend going
> ahead with that regardless of the rest of this.  I hadn't realized
> how many random calls of int8_numeric and int4_numeric we'd grown,
> but there are a lot, so this is nice cleanup.

Yes, please go ahead with it.

> I continue to think that we can't commit 0003 in this form, because
> of the breakage that will ensure in stored views.  As I said upthread,
> we should leave the existing SQL-exposed functions alone, invent
> new ones that return numeric, and alter the parser to translate
> EXTRACT constructs to the new functions.  This approach would also
> provide an "out" for anyone who does complain about the performance
> cost --- they can just continue to use the old functions.

Okay, I will continue looking into this.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services