Re: [HACKERS] Date/time types: big change

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> The reason I'm asking is that I would like to see the floating point types
>> converted to SQL in a similar fashion, but when I rename, say, float4eq to
>> realeq it might break user applications. Or not? This is all hypothetical
>> of course.

> Lots of work for not much gain imho. For the date/time stuff, it made
> sense because timestamp needed to be replaced. There isn't the same
> underlying need for the floating point types afaik.

> On the other hand, 7.0 (or 8.0, but that may be another 4 years ;) is
> the time to do it. Does anyone else see this as an issue?

I think it's too late in the 7.0 cycle to start thinking about renaming
the numeric types. While you implemented the date/time changes at
almost the last minute, the changes had been discussed and agreed to
long ago, and you knew exactly what you needed to do. I don't think
that constitutes a precedent for a hurried revision of the numeric
types...

We've already postponed 7.0 beta twice. Seems to me it's time to
start raising the bar for what we will accept into this revision.

regards, tom lane