From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list |
Date: | 2000-01-17 08:08:59 |
Message-ID: | 20305.948096539@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> Does this mean the abstime/reltime types or all of them? I thought the
>> former were deprecated anyway.
> abstime should probably be considered deprecated as a user type, but
> it is still used extensively internally and within the tuple
> structure. I'd be reluctant to wholesale replace it with
> timestamp/datetime, since that will take 8 bytes per value rather than
> 4.
I was meaning to ask you which of the date/time types are going to be
left standing when the dust settles. (I know you've said, but the
archives are so messed up right now that I can't find it.)
Timestamp is the only remaining standard type without an array type,
and if it's not going to be deprecated then it ought to have one...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-01-17 08:26:28 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/include/catalog (pg_type.h) |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-01-17 08:02:02 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list |