Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Date: 2010-10-17 20:17:20
Message-ID: 14006.1287346640@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> What should be done? I see a few options:

> 1. Do nothing. Floating-point timestamps aren't the default, and the bug
> reports are likely to be few and far between (but those that encounter
> the bug are likely to be very frustrated).

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.

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-17 20:26:00 Re: WIP: extensible enums
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-17 20:10:06 Re: WIP: extensible enums