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 9F37C32A3DE for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:49:21 +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 78092-04 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:49:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.202]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C439332A312 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:49:12 +0100 (BST) Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 78so354857rnl for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.171.77 with SMTP id t77mr5081222rne; Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.126.6 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 07:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:49:12 -0400 From: Mike Rylander Reply-To: Mike Rylander To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Mislabeled timestamp functions (was Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd timestamp index possible?) In-Reply-To: <22070.1096741370@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <13492.1096656574@sss.pgh.pa.us> <15677.1096671183@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200410021941.30084.peter_e@gmx.net> <22070.1096741370@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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: 200410/55 X-Sequence-Number: 59558 Not that my 2c is worth 1c, but I second this. I'd rather initdb now than get bitten by some catalog difference when I move my DB into production. :) --miker On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:22:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: [...] > > > I'd prefer if all users of 8.0 were guaranteed to have the same catalog. > > Well, there's something to be said for that viewpoint too. Anyone else > feel the same? [...]