On 5/24/18 2:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
"Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> Yeah. There are two relevant variants of date_trunc():
[...]
Tom> So we probably ought to change the docs here.
There's also the option of adding an explicit function
date_trunc(text,date) returns date, which is a workaround that I (and
probably quite a few other people) have used. I think having such a
function added to core would be less surprising than the current
behavior.
Ah! Yes, of course, that would be better. Seems like a workable
solution for Chris, too. We still can't back-patch it, though.
regards, tom lane
I could take a pass at this about two weeks from now. (I won't be sad if
someone else beats me to it.)
Are we in agreement that the return type should be date? I wasn't able
to find a definitive reference for the expected behavior of date_trunc.
Shall I replicate the behavior of casting to/from timestamp? What should
happen when the user requests some time portion (e.g. hour) be truncated?
-- Chris
