Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
- To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
- Cc: "Francisco Reyes" <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 01:15:57 -0600
- Message-id: <dcc563d10805090015s10523e0dq5f274635e7419303(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote: > > Our timestamp has a much larger range than a 4-byte time_t, docs say: > > <entry>4713 BC</entry> > <entry>294276 AD</entry> Which is normally great. Doesn't it have greater precision in the modern era or something like that? If you compile for integer dates do they have the same range? Also, that range is fine, unless you're tracking geological timeframes. :)
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- From: Merlin Moncure
- Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- References:
- Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- From: Francisco Reyes
- Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- Prev by Date: Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- Next by Date: Re: auto-vacuum questions
- Previous by thread: Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- Next by thread: Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
- Indexes: