| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | S Murthy Kambhampaty <smk_va(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support |
| Date: | 2005-05-14 23:42:45 |
| Message-ID: | 12613.1116114165@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
S Murthy Kambhampaty <smk_va(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> "Consistent precision through the range of allowed
> values" sceems a feature worth having.
> I wonder why you are "not sure that many people need
> it".
Because almost nobody has complained about the lack of it.
(I'm talking about actual field experience of there being a
problem, not somebody objecting that it sounds like a
feature worth having.)
It should also be pointed out that we are still finding bugs in
the integer-datetimes code. This is of course exactly because
it's not the default --- but I feel sure that the average user
who notices a difference at all, if we change the default,
will be much more likely to hit a bug than to benefit.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | S Murthy Kambhampaty | 2005-05-15 00:42:55 | Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support |
| Previous Message | Tomaz Borstnar | 2005-05-14 23:00:59 | Re: IMPORTANT: two new PostgreSQL security problems found |