| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8) |
| Date: | 2016-03-17 20:53:17 |
| Message-ID: | 2204.1458247997@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> 15.03.2016 22:28, David Steele:
>> I'm not in favor of the "4", either. I think I would prefer
>> JULIAN_MAXYEAR_STAMP.
> This point is related to another patch
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/.
> And added to this patch just for compatibility.
> If Tom wouldn't change the name of the macros there, I don't see any
> reasons why should we do it in this patch.
Yeah, I didn't like the "4STAMPS" terminology at all. It ended up being
moot for that patch, because the answer eventually turned out to be that
we needed to decouple the Julian-date boundaries from the datatype
boundaries altogether. But I would've renamed those macros to something
else if they'd stayed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lizeth Solis Aramayo | 2016-03-17 21:00:54 | postgresql 9.4 on AIX 7.1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-17 20:50:09 | Re: Small patch: fix double variable initializations in policy.c |