[PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8)

Added to the CF 2016-03:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/546/

--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 2/26/16, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.burovoy@gmail.com> wrote:

Proposed patch implements it.

I'm sorry, I forgot to leave a note for reviewers and committers:

This patch requires CATALOG_VERSION_NO be bumped.

Since pg_proc.h entry has changed, it is important to check and run
regress tests on a new cluster (as if CATALOG_VERSION_NO was bumped).

--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

27.02.2016 09:57, Vitaly Burovoy:

Hello, Hackers!

I worked on a patch[1] allows "EXTRACT(epoch FROM
+-Inf::timestamp[tz])" to return "+-Inf::float8".
There is an opposite function "to_timestamp(float8)" which now defined as:
SELECT ('epoch'::timestamptz + $1 * '1 second'::interval)

Hi,
thank you for the patches.
Could you explain, whether they depend on each other?

Since intervals do not support infinity values, it is impossible to do
something like:

SELECT to_timestamp('infinity'::float8);

... which is not good.

Supporting of such converting is in the TODO list[2] (by "converting
between infinity timestamp and float8").

You mention intervals here, and TODO item definitely says about
'infinity' interval,
while patch and all the following discussion concerns to timestamps.
Is it a typo or I misunderstood something important?
I assumed that following query will work, but it isn't. Could you
clarify that?
select to_timestamp('infinity'::interval);

Proposed patch implements it.

There is an other patch in the CF[3] 2016-03 implements checking of
timestamp[tz] for being in allowed range. Since it is wise to set
(fix) the upper boundary of timestamp[tz]s, I've included the file
"src/include/datatype/timestamp.h" from there to check that an input
value and a result are in the allowed range.

There is no changes in a documentation because allowed range is the
same as officially supported[4] (i.e. until 294277 AD).

I think that you should update documentation. At least description of
epoch on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html

Here is how you can convert an epoch value back to a time stamp:

SELECT TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE 'epoch' + 982384720.12 * INTERVAL '1 second';

(The |to_timestamp| function encapsulates the above conversion.)

More thoughts about the patch:

1. When I copy value from hints for min and max values (see examples
below), it works fine for min, while max still leads to error.
It comes from the check "if (seconds >= epoch_ubound)". I wonder,
whether you should change hint message?

select to_timestamp(-210866803200.000000);
to_timestamp
---------------------------------
4714-11-24 02:30:17+02:30:17 BC
(1 row)

select to_timestamp(9224318016000.000000);
ERROR: UNIX epoch out of range: "9224318016000.000000"
HINT: Maximal UNIX epoch value is "9224318016000.000000"

2. There is a comment about JULIAN_MAXYEAR inaccuracy in timestamp.h:

* IS_VALID_JULIAN checks the minimum date exactly, but is a bit sloppy
* about the maximum, since it's far enough out to not be especially
* interesting.

Maybe you can expand it?
- Is JULIAN_MAXYEAR4STAMPS helps to avoid overflow in all possible cases?
- Why do we need to hold both definitions? I suppose, it's a matter of
backward compatibility, isn't it?

3. (nitpicking) I don't sure about "4STAMPS" suffix. "4" is nice
abbreviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me.

--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

27.02.2016 09:57, Vitaly Burovoy:

Hello, Hackers!

I worked on a patch[1] allows "EXTRACT(epoch FROM
+-Inf::timestamp[tz])" to return "+-Inf::float8".
There is an opposite function "to_timestamp(float8)" which now defined
as:
SELECT ('epoch'::timestamptz + $1 * '1 second'::interval)

Hi,
thank you for the patches.

Thank you for the review.

Could you explain, whether they depend on each other?

Only logically. They reverse each other:
postgres=# SELECT v, to_timestamp(v), extract(epoch FROM to_timestamp(v)) FROM
postgres-# unnest(ARRAY['+inf', '-inf', 0, 65536, 982384720.12]::float8[]) v;
v | to_timestamp | date_part
--------------+---------------------------+--------------
Infinity | infinity | Infinity
-Infinity | -infinity | -Infinity
0 | 1970-01-01 00:00:00+00 | 0
65536 | 1970-01-01 18:12:16+00 | 65536
982384720.12 | 2001-02-17 04:38:40.12+00 | 982384720.12
(5 rows)

Since intervals do not support infinity values, it is impossible to do
something like:

SELECT to_timestamp('infinity'::float8);

... which is not good.

Supporting of such converting is in the TODO list[2] (by "converting
between infinity timestamp and float8").

You mention intervals here, and TODO item definitely says about
'infinity' interval,

Yes, it is in the same block. But I wanted to point to the link
"converting between infinity timestamp and float8". There are two-way
conversion examples.

while patch and all the following discussion concerns to timestamps.
Is it a typo or I misunderstood something important?

It is just a reason why I rewrote it as an internal function.
I asked whether to just rewrite the function
"pg_catalog.to_timestamp(float8)" as an internal one or to add support
of infinite intervals. Tom Lane answered[5]/messages/by-id/21367.1447046745@sss.pgh.pa.us -- Best regards, Vitaly Burovoy "you should stay away from
infinite intervals".
So I left intervals as is.

I assumed that following query will work, but it isn't. Could you
clarify that?
select to_timestamp('infinity'::interval);

It is not hard. There is no logical way to convert interval (e.g.
"5minutes") to a timestamp (or date).
There never was a function "to_timestamp(interval)" and never will be.
postgres=# select to_timestamp('5min'::interval);
ERROR: function to_timestamp(interval) does not exist
LINE 1: select to_timestamp('1min'::interval);
^
HINT: No function matches the given name and argument types. You
might need to add explicit type casts.

Proposed patch implements it.

There is an other patch in the CF[3] 2016-03 implements checking of
timestamp[tz] for being in allowed range. Since it is wise to set
(fix) the upper boundary of timestamp[tz]s, I've included the file
"src/include/datatype/timestamp.h" from there to check that an input
value and a result are in the allowed range.

There is no changes in a documentation because allowed range is the
same as officially supported[4] (i.e. until 294277 AD).

I think that you should update documentation. At least description of
epoch on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html

Thank you very much for pointing where it is located (I saw only
"to_timestamp(TEXT, TEXT)").
I'll think how to update it.

More thoughts about the patch:

1. When I copy value from hints for min and max values (see examples
below), it works fine for min, while max still leads to error.
It comes from the check "if (seconds >= epoch_ubound)". I wonder,
whether you should change hint message?

select to_timestamp(-210866803200.000000);
to_timestamp
---------------------------------
4714-11-24 02:30:17+02:30:17 BC
(1 row)

select to_timestamp(9224318016000.000000);
ERROR: UNIX epoch out of range: "9224318016000.000000"
HINT: Maximal UNIX epoch value is "9224318016000.000000"

I agree, it is a little confusing. Do you (or anyone) know how to
construct a condensed phrase that it is an exclusive upper bound of an
allowed UNIX epoch range?

2. There is a comment about JULIAN_MAXYEAR inaccuracy in timestamp.h:

* IS_VALID_JULIAN checks the minimum date exactly, but is a bit sloppy
* about the maximum, since it's far enough out to not be especially
* interesting.

It is just about the accuracy to the day for a lower bound, and to the
year (not to a day) for an upper bound.

Maybe you can expand it?
- Is JULIAN_MAXYEAR4STAMPS helps to avoid overflow in all possible cases?
- Why do we need to hold both definitions? I suppose, it's a matter of
backward compatibility, isn't it?

Yes. I tried to be less invasive from the point of view of endusers.
They can be sure if they follow the documentation they won't get into
trouble.

3. (nitpicking) I don't sure about "4STAMPS" suffix. "4" is nice
abbreviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me.

It doesn't matter for me what it is called, it is short enough and
reflects a type on which it is applied.
What would the best name be for it?

[5]: /messages/by-id/21367.1447046745@sss.pgh.pa.us -- Best regards, Vitaly Burovoy
--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 3/4/16 2:56 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:

On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

I think that you should update documentation. At least description of
epoch on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html

Thank you very much for pointing where it is located (I saw only
"to_timestamp(TEXT, TEXT)").
I'll think how to update it.

Vitaly, have you decided how to update this yet?

3. (nitpicking) I don't sure about "4STAMPS" suffix. "4" is nice
abbreviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me.

It doesn't matter for me what it is called, it is short enough and
reflects a type on which it is applied.
What would the best name be for it?

Anastasia, any suggestions for a better name, or just leave it as is?

I'm not in favor of the "4", either. I think I would prefer
JULIAN_MAXYEAR_STAMP.

--
-David
david@pgmasters.net

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

15.03.2016 22:28, David Steele:

On 3/4/16 2:56 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:

On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

I think that you should update documentation. At least description of
epoch on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html

Thank you very much for pointing where it is located (I saw only
"to_timestamp(TEXT, TEXT)").
I'll think how to update it.

Vitaly, have you decided how to update this yet?

3. (nitpicking) I don't sure about "4STAMPS" suffix. "4" is nice
abbreviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me.

It doesn't matter for me what it is called, it is short enough and
reflects a type on which it is applied.
What would the best name be for it?

Anastasia, any suggestions for a better name, or just leave it as is?

I'm not in favor of the "4", either. I think I would prefer
JULIAN_MAXYEAR_STAMP.

This point is related to another patch
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/.
And added to this patch just for compatibility.
If Tom wouldn't change the name of the macros there, I don't see any
reasons why should we do it in this patch.

--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 2016-03-15, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:

On 3/4/16 2:56 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:

On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

I think that you should update documentation. At least description of
epoch on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html

Thank you very much for pointing where it is located (I saw only
"to_timestamp(TEXT, TEXT)").
I'll think how to update it.

Vitaly, have you decided how to update this yet?

Yes, there are three versions:
* remove mentioning how to get timestamptz from UNIX stamp;
* leave a note how to get timestamptz and add a note that such
encapsulation existed prior to 9.6;
* replace to the proposed current behavior (without interval).

I decided to implement the third case (but a result there has a time
zone which can be different, so the result can be not exactly same for
a concrete user). If a committer decides to do somehow else, he is
free to choose one from the list above or to do something else.

3. (nitpicking) I don't sure about "4STAMPS" suffix. "4" is nice
abbreviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me.

It doesn't matter for me what it is called, it is short enough and
reflects a type on which it is applied.
What would the best name be for it?

Anastasia, any suggestions for a better name, or just leave it as is?

I'm not in favor of the "4", either. I think I would prefer
JULIAN_MAXYEAR_STAMP.

It turns out that Tom has changed almost one third of timestamp.h and
now the constant has a name "TIMESTAMP_END_JULIAN".

I've rebased the patch to the current master (5db5146) and changed it
according to the new timestamp.h.

Now it passes both versions (integer and float timestamps).
I deleted test for the upper boundary for integer timestamps, changed
a little comments.

I decided to delete hints about minimum and maximum allowed values
because no one type has such hint.

Please find attached a new version of the patch.

--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy

Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> writes:

15.03.2016 22:28, David Steele:

I'm not in favor of the "4", either. I think I would prefer
JULIAN_MAXYEAR_STAMP.

This point is related to another patch
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/.
And added to this patch just for compatibility.
If Tom wouldn't change the name of the macros there, I don't see any
reasons why should we do it in this patch.

Yeah, I didn't like the "4STAMPS" terminology at all. It ended up being
moot for that patch, because the answer eventually turned out to be that
we needed to decouple the Julian-date boundaries from the datatype
boundaries altogether. But I would've renamed those macros to something
else if they'd stayed.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

17.03.2016 06:27, Vitaly Burovoy:

On 2016-03-15, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:

On 3/4/16 2:56 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:

On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

I think that you should update documentation. At least description of
epoch on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html

Thank you very much for pointing where it is located (I saw only
"to_timestamp(TEXT, TEXT)").
I'll think how to update it.

Vitaly, have you decided how to update this yet?

Yes, there are three versions:
* remove mentioning how to get timestamptz from UNIX stamp;
* leave a note how to get timestamptz and add a note that such
encapsulation existed prior to 9.6;
* replace to the proposed current behavior (without interval).

I decided to implement the third case (but a result there has a time
zone which can be different, so the result can be not exactly same for
a concrete user). If a committer decides to do somehow else, he is
free to choose one from the list above or to do something else.

3. (nitpicking) I don't sure about "4STAMPS" suffix. "4" is nice
abbreviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me.

It doesn't matter for me what it is called, it is short enough and
reflects a type on which it is applied.
What would the best name be for it?

Anastasia, any suggestions for a better name, or just leave it as is?

I'm not in favor of the "4", either. I think I would prefer
JULIAN_MAXYEAR_STAMP.

It turns out that Tom has changed almost one third of timestamp.h and
now the constant has a name "TIMESTAMP_END_JULIAN".

I've rebased the patch to the current master (5db5146) and changed it
according to the new timestamp.h.

Now it passes both versions (integer and float timestamps).
I deleted test for the upper boundary for integer timestamps, changed
a little comments.

I decided to delete hints about minimum and maximum allowed values
because no one type has such hint.

Please find attached a new version of the patch.

I think, I should write something as a reviewer.
I read the patch again and I don't see any issues with it.
It applies to the master and works as expected. So I'll mark it as
"Ready for committer"

--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> writes:

17.03.2016 06:27, Vitaly Burovoy:

Please find attached a new version of the patch.

I think, I should write something as a reviewer.
I read the patch again and I don't see any issues with it.
It applies to the master and works as expected. So I'll mark it as
"Ready for committer"

Pushed with minor adjustments.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 3/29/16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Pushed with minor adjustments.

regards, tom lane

Thank you very much!

--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers