On 2012-11-06, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> hari.fu...@gmail.com
>
>> No: the result of e.g.
>>
>> SELECT TIMESTAMPTZ '2012-10-28 01:30:00' + INTERVAL '24 hours';
>>
>> depends on the client's timezone and its DST rules.
>
> Can you give an example of where adding an interval based on *hours*
> to T
On 2012-11-06, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> For TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE it couldn't be IMMUTABLE, because the
> result would be based on the time zone setting of the client
> connection; but adding a fixed interval to a UTC time to get a UTC
> time seems pretty immutable to me. That said, I'm not
On 2012-11-06, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> hari.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > I think the problem is that this + operator is implemented
>> > by the function "timestamptz_pl_interval", which is STABLE
>> > but not IMMUTABLE.
>> >
>> > I am not sure why this function cannot be IMMUTABLE, it
>> > seems to m
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Now, if you wanted to argue that *this* query might depend on time
> zone information, I'd be more willing to believe it, and maybe the
> problem is that we use the same function for both:
> SELECT TIMESTAMPTZ '2012-10-28 01:30:00' + INTERVAL '1 day';
The "problem" is
Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I am using 9.1.6, and I've set up a partitioned table as described
>> in the manual, with partitions based on a timestamptz column
>> called 'time'. The exclusion constraints work nicely when I select
>> ranges of times with literal constants. But why wo
hari.fu...@gmail.com
> No: the result of e.g.
>
> SELECT TIMESTAMPTZ '2012-10-28 01:30:00' + INTERVAL '24 hours';
>
> depends on the client's timezone and its DST rules.
Can you give an example of where adding an interval based on *hours*
to TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE would give a different valu
hari.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I think the problem is that this + operator is implemented
> > by the function "timestamptz_pl_interval", which is STABLE
> > but not IMMUTABLE.
> >
> > I am not sure why this function cannot be IMMUTABLE, it
> > seems to me that it should be.
>
> No: the result of
"Albe Laurenz" writes:
> I think the problem is that this + operator is implemented
> by the function "timestamptz_pl_interval", which is STABLE
> but not IMMUTABLE.
>
> I am not sure why this function cannot be IMMUTABLE, it
> seems to me that it should be.
No: the result of e.g.
SELECT TIME
Thomas Munro wrote:
> I am using 9.1.6, and I've set up a partitioned table as described in
the manual, with partitions
> based on a timestamptz column called 'time'. The exclusion
constraints work nicely when I select
> ranges of times with literal constants. But why would a WHERE clause
like th
Hi
I am using 9.1.6, and I've set up a partitioned table as described in the
manual, with partitions based on a timestamptz column called 'time'. The
exclusion constraints work nicely when I select ranges of times with
literal constants. But why would a WHERE clause like the following not
benefi
10 matches
Mail list logo
