Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lpmLv-0001aF-T2 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 06:33:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lpmLu-0002VA-ST for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 06:33:42 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lpmLu-0002Um-Kg for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 06:33:42 +0000 Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lpmLp-0002O6-RG for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 06:33:41 +0000 Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id d5-20020a17090ab305b02901675357c371so9590063pjr.1 for ; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 23:33:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=leadboat.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=wFyvhJ2O4pmihwEp9XN6JnZY08r9TQmNNRTtzF0oqyA=; b=QLWfOluvGDbHxwbFPOGoT5tlFNMZ2h0NqVLAsLYByxbKIRAzj1YDauKjlmo/ItX3dd zk0aNJifquhaRDK1yFdAG5y9bPJFgiRAhg+gzTmW6sgkIqk9KWTULfOe7TtZd46Ym/ma Wo/ETKtzfFAFq2cBL/5EGl5krRpvM3O5HzNUM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=wFyvhJ2O4pmihwEp9XN6JnZY08r9TQmNNRTtzF0oqyA=; b=sJFoxqrelxVpkp0k5/MOKWiAHvgEBaHjcccR03xzhsdrWwyGaMadZyP3b8F31/anss HpnuJqbbQ350xZHotgId8n9VDKEeL2sJwXp73CAMkdINg9+pqlEGSvBUAxdtNySamaWf A5JbgNukynKGSqIKnU0Jdh8d+bmdMi2hcxwXj3TO1d9fvyVpueIWD2QFJr8CSJFzf36R fkCTG0NWH/LWjabQ63wQWe8PAslIGZdQitx+6y/lDoLD2AFDT6Mai2riyWN2UfnIRQ3C aphMo+40ZnuZxCkIjCyvJJc5isYq4DvrQOp0Psyss5rrCm72MJWDq6KhLHEDJt3Yt96s cpBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5322nk1ApR6cZo6mn7GQa+Aihzkwwz92bwldb4W55bFSqhriLGKZ by1RgRBpie8UuNXw3obW4ZkRgQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyscttb7Jk5QUk8JGK9LmtC4JQlEmrFgndmSNJgQdH657WhS2cFA/1BuyKBO5ZgeJiXsu37kw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8c97:: with SMTP id b23mr13840337pjo.74.1622961214893; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 23:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfd.leadboat.com ([2600:1702:a20:5750::46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 15sm5364122pfy.15.2021.06.05.23.33.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Jun 2021 23:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 23:33:31 -0700 From: Noah Misch To: Tom Lane Cc: Peter Eisentraut , Vik Fearing , Thomas Munro , Petr Fedorov , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch Message-ID: <20210606063331.GC297923@rfd.leadboat.com> References: <9a680979-ad76-4c3b-1bc0-403152cf49dc@postgresfriends.org> <5752.1590424827@sss.pgh.pa.us> <428767b1-6a18-cc5a-bb2f-a78bc306fae3@postgresfriends.org> <6816.1590426450@sss.pgh.pa.us> <7994.1590428104@sss.pgh.pa.us> <298489.1604188643@sss.pgh.pa.us> <829899.1604357408@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1090402.1604449334@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1090402.1604449334@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:22:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I feel like this is committable at this point --- any objections? (This became commit 40c24bf, "Improve our ability to regurgitate SQL-syntax function calls.") > --- a/src/backend/nodes/equalfuncs.c > +++ b/src/backend/nodes/equalfuncs.c > @@ -2369,11 +2369,12 @@ _equalFuncCall(const FuncCall *a, const FuncCall *b) > + COMPARE_SCALAR_FIELD(funcformat); equalfuncs.c has been using COMPARE_COERCIONFORM_FIELD() to ignore differences in fields of this type. Does this spot have cause to depart from the pattern?