text coverage for EXTRACT()
During the discussion in [0]/messages/by-id/42b73d2d-da12-ba9f-570a-420e0cce19d9@phystech.edu I noticed that the extract()/date_part()
variants for time, timetz, and interval had virtually no test coverage.
So I put some more tests together, which should be useful if we decide
to make any changes in this area per [0]/messages/by-id/42b73d2d-da12-ba9f-570a-420e0cce19d9@phystech.edu.
[0]: /messages/by-id/42b73d2d-da12-ba9f-570a-420e0cce19d9@phystech.edu
/messages/by-id/42b73d2d-da12-ba9f-570a-420e0cce19d9@phystech.edu
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachments:
0001-Add-test-coverage-for-EXTRACT.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=0001-Add-test-coverage-for-EXTRACT.patch; x-mac-creator=0; x-mac-type=0Download+250-25
On 6/9/20 1:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
During the discussion in [0] I noticed that the extract()/date_part()
variants for time, timetz, and interval had virtually no test coverage.
So I put some more tests together, which should be useful if we decide
to make any changes in this area per [0].
These look straightforward to me.
Looking at that big table, I see everything is 0-based except the
quarter. That seems unfortunate, and if this were a new feature I'd
lobby to have it changed. I don't think we can do anything about it
now, though.
--
Vik Fearing
Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes:
On 6/9/20 1:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
During the discussion in [0] I noticed that the extract()/date_part()
variants for time, timetz, and interval had virtually no test coverage.
So I put some more tests together, which should be useful if we decide
to make any changes in this area per [0].
These look straightforward to me.
+1 here as well.
Looking at that big table, I see everything is 0-based except the
quarter. That seems unfortunate, and if this were a new feature I'd
lobby to have it changed. I don't think we can do anything about it
now, though.
Yeah, that ship has sailed :-(
regards, tom lane
On 2020-06-09 16:11, Tom Lane wrote:
Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes:
On 6/9/20 1:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
During the discussion in [0] I noticed that the extract()/date_part()
variants for time, timetz, and interval had virtually no test coverage.
So I put some more tests together, which should be useful if we decide
to make any changes in this area per [0].These look straightforward to me.
+1 here as well.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services