| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Date/time types: big change |
| Date: | 2000-02-17 16:08:13 |
| Message-ID: | 15819.950803693@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it's too late in the 7.0 cycle to start thinking about renaming
>> the numeric types.
> I didn't mean that this should happen now or even soon. It was more of a
> policy/practice inquiry.
OK, fair enough. What I'm thinking at the moment is let's wait and see
how painful or painless the transition is for the date/time types.
The number of squawks we hear about that should give us a clue whether
we want to be in a hurry to rename the numeric types...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sevo Stille | 2000-02-17 16:11:28 | Re: [HACKERS] Definitional issue for INET types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-17 15:57:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Almost there on column aliases |