Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Date: 2010-10-17 20:34:28
Message-ID: 1287347668.16662.9.camel@jdavis-laptop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 16:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm for that one. Anybody working with fractional float timestamps
> should already understand that they aren't exact. I can't see the value
> of expending any great amount of effort on this.

OK.

> There is maybe some argument for removing the float timestamp code
> altogether, but I think that that's probably premature. They were
> still the default in 8.3, and we are still supporting in-place upgrade
> from 8.3.

Regarding Josh Drake's comment, do you have any insight about when
Redhat will start to ship with integer timestamps? That seems like the
determining factor for when we can deprecate floating-point timestamps.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-17 20:40:23 Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-17 20:27:42 Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types