Horton

Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Petr Fedorov <petr.fedorov@phystech.edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-06-06T19:10:07Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers 
I wrote:
> We could make use of COMPARE_COERCIONFORM_FIELD 100% correct by removing
> these two tests of the funcformat value, but on the whole I doubt that
> would be better.

On still closer inspection, that seems like it'd be fine.  All of
the gram.y productions that emit COERCE_SQL_SYNTAX also produce
schema-qualified function names (via SystemFuncName); and it seems
hard to see a use-case where we'd not do that.  This makes the two
checks I cited 100% redundant, because the conditions they are in
also insist on an unqualified function name.  So let's just take them
out again, making it strictly OK to use COMPARE_COERCIONFORM_FIELD.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix inconsistent equalfuncs.c behavior for FuncCall.funcformat.

  2. Doc: fix discussion of how to get real Julian Dates.

  3. Doc: document EXTRACT(JULIAN ...), improve Julian Date explanation.

  4. Change return type of EXTRACT to numeric

  5. Improve our ability to regurgitate SQL-syntax function calls.

  6. Add more tests for EXTRACT of date type

  7. Expose internal function for converting int64 to numeric

  8. Change floating-point output format for improved performance.