Magnus Hagander <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:38, David Jarvis <thangalin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Does it makes sense to use named parameter notation for the first value (the >> year)? This could be potentially confusing: > How so? If it does named parameters, why not all? There's no reason not to allow the year parameter to be named. What I think it shouldn't have is a default. OTOH I see no good reason not to allow the other ones to have defaults. (We presumably want timezone to default to the system timezone setting, but I wonder how we should make that work --- should an empty string be treated as meaning that?) >> Similarly, to_timestamp() ...? Seems meaningless without at least a full >> date and an hour. > Agreed. No, I think it's perfectly sane to allow month/day to default to 1 and h/m/s to zeroes. I do think it might be a good idea to have two functions, construct_timestamp yielding timestamptz and construct_date yielding date (and needing only 3 args). When you only want a date, having to use construct_timestamp and cast will be awkward and much more expensive than is needed (timezone rotations aren't real cheap). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
