Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1576665.1688063087@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not
|
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
Braiam <braiamp@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 1:52 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There is no age(date, date) function. What we have is age(timestamp,
>> timestamp) and age(timestamptz, timestamptz), so the parser has to
>> choose which type to coerce to --- and it prefers timestamptz.
> According to \df+ age both timestamptz and timestamp are immutable:
True, but not very relevant: it's the coercion from date that's
giving you trouble.
> So, whatever type is coerced into pre-function evaluation comes
> with strange results. I'm not aware of a way that I can see what
> kind of type is being coerced into.
EXPLAIN will show that, eg
=# explain verbose select age(current_date, current_date);
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result (cost=0.00..0.02 rows=1 width=16)
Output: age((CURRENT_DATE)::timestamp with time zone, (CURRENT_DATE)::timestamp with time zone)
(2 rows)
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: