Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
- From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:07:16 +0100
- Message-id: <407d949e0907291007p6817d4e1u91b964fe7a16ec2a@mail.gmail.com> <text/plain>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: > I agree that we should change it, but should we back-patch it, and if so > how far? > Well at least to 8.4 so someone who has just always been using downloaded binaries or binaries compiled with the default configuration continues to get the same behaviour. My inclination would be to backpatch it further back. But I'm not 100% sure either. -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
- From: Gregory Stark
- Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
- From: Tom Lane
- date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
- Prev by Date: Re: system timezone regression failure
- Next by Date: Re: Higher TOAST compression.
- Previous by thread: Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
- Next by thread: Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
- Indexes: