On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:02:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sinte we already have width_bucket, I'd argue this should go in core. If > > someone's feeling adventurous, there should probably be a double > > precision version as well. Hrm... and maybe text... > > It's not clear to me why we have width_bucket operating on numeric and > not float8 --- that seems like an oversight, if not outright > misunderstanding of the type hierarchy. But if we had the float8 > version, I think Jeremy's problem would be solved just by applying > the float8 version to "extract(epoch from timestamp)". I don't really > see the use-case for putting N versions of the function in there.
Well, it would be nice to have a timestamp version so that users didn't have to keep typing "extract(epoch from timestamp)"... but yeah, I suspect that would work fine for timestamps. For intervals I suspect you could just convert to seconds (if we're going to add timestamps, it seems like we should add intervals as well). -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
