X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CD232A610 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:40:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07137-04 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 00:40:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.249.74]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 123F132A615 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:40:08 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 24804 invoked by uid 500); 2 Oct 2004 00:50:08 -0000 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:50:08 -0500 From: Bruno Wolff III To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) Message-ID: <20041002005008.GA24766@wolff.to> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Lane , pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org References: <20041001182830.GA20624@wolff.to> <13492.1096656574@sss.pgh.pa.us> <15677.1096671183@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15677.1096671183@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200410/32 X-Sequence-Number: 59535 On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 18:53:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force an > initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be fixed > in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now without > noticing, so it doesn't seem like a serious enough bug to force a > post-beta initdb ... to me anyway. As long as it is mentioned in the release notes, it doesn't seem worth forcing an initdb.