pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Petr Fedorov <petr.fedorov@phystech.edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 08:18:29 -0400
Message-ID: <3ff4be02-1e2b-564f-9b53-3dc561da8218@pgmasters.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2fb99632-9302-6509-78ce-3aaed3fd7f40@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <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>
	<097a4242-0748-98e3-06ab-ded1d366cd76@2ndquadrant.com>
	<1893468.1599658711@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<38fc499a-ae52-efb6-aad6-82f812d6782d@2ndquadrant.com>
	<20200917055327.GU2873@paquier.xyz>
	<20200930071543.GL1996@paquier.xyz>
	<2fb99632-9302-6509-78ce-3aaed3fd7f40@2ndquadrant.com>

On 12/15/20 9:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is a new patch for this.  This now follows the implementation that 
> Tom has suggested:  Leave date_part() alone, add a new set of extract() 
> functions, and map the SQL EXTRACT construct to those.  I have basically 
> just copied over the implementations from my previous patch and placed 
> them next to the existing date_part() implementations.  So all the 
> behavior is still the same as in the previous patches.
> 
> One thing I still need to look into is how to not lose all the test 
> coverage for date_part().  But that should be fairly mechanical, so I'm 
> leaving it off in this version.

Tom, what do you think of the updated patch?

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net





view thread (47+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <3ff4be02-1e2b-564f-9b53-3dc561da8218@pgmasters.net>
Permalink:  ../3ff4be02-1e2b-564f-9b53-3dc561da8218@pgmasters.net/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/3ff4be02-1e2b-564f-9b53-3dc561da8218@pgmasters.net

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: david@pgmasters.net, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pavel.stehule@gmail.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com, petr.fedorov@phystech.edu, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch
  In-Reply-To: <3ff4be02-1e2b-564f-9b53-3dc561da8218@pgmasters.net>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox