| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |