I wrote:
> Li Japin <japi...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> I find there is a duplicate function call on timestamp2tm in
>> timestamptz_part and timestamp_part.
>> Is that necessary? I remove the latter one and it also works.
> Huh. I do believe you're right. Must be an ancient copy-and-paste
> mistake?
Ah, after looking in the git history, not quite that ancient:
this duplication dates to commit 258ee1b63, which moved these
switch cases from the "if (type == RESERV)" switches in the
same functions. In the previous coding these function calls
were actually necessary, but here they're redundant. I guess
that's just additional ammunition for Greg's point that the
keywords were misclassified ;-).
I see from the code coverage report that we're missing coverage
for these and some other paths in timestamp[tz]_part. Think
I'll go add some more test cases while I'm at it.
Thanks again for the report!
regards, tom lane
