Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not
Braiam <braiamp@gmail.com>
From: Braiam <braiamp@gmail.com>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: braiamp+pg@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-06-29T18:23:33Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 1:45 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:36 AM PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: >> >> The following bug has been logged on the website: >> >> Bug reference: 18007 >> Logged by: Braiam Peguero >> Email address: braiamp+pg@gmail.com >> PostgreSQL version: 15.3 >> Operating system: Debian >> Description: >> >> There's no much difference between timestamp and dateT00:00:00.000, yet >> using age(date, date) > > > There is no "age(date, date)" function. Only age(timestamp, timestamp) > >> for some reason internally doesn't type coerce >> correctly into the appropriated types. > > > Nope, type coercion happens before the function call, while figuring out which function signature to choose. > >> >> I remember that on a previous >> versions (not sure if it was 14) this wasn't the case, so I would consider >> this a regression. > > > You haven't provided any code demonstrating what you think is incorrect. create temporary table test ( start_date date not null, end_date date not null ); alter table test add column time_elapsed interval generated always as (age(end_date, start_date)) stored; > David J. > -- Braiam