| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |
| Date: | 2014-09-26 18:33:53 |
| Message-ID: | 9061.1411756433@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Agreed- they're independent considerations and the original concern was
> about the nonzero-to-zero issue, so I'd suggest we address that first,
> though in doing so we will need to consider what *actual* min values we
> should have for some cases which currently allow going to zero for the
> special case and that, I believe, makes this all 9.5 material and allows
> us a bit more freedom in deciding how to hanlde things more generally.
Yeah, I was thinking the same: we should go through the GUCs having zero
as min_val and see if any of them could be tightened up. And I agree
that *all* of this is 9.5 material --- it's not a big enough deal to
risk changing behaviors in a minor release.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Johnston | 2014-09-26 18:34:20 | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-26 18:27:09 | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |