| From: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)monsterlabs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time for 7.2.1? |
| Date: | 2002-03-15 18:06:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3C923841.8F555E9E@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Well, we were gonna release it last weekend, but now it's waiting on
> sequence fixes (currently being tested). And Lockhart may also wish to
> hold it up while he looks at the recently reported timestamp_part
> problem. (Thomas, are you considering backpatching that?) One way
> or another I'd expect it next week sometime.
I'll consider backpatching once I have a chance to dive in.
It is somewhat complicated by the fact that my code tree is pretty
massively changed in this area as I implement an int64-based date/time
storage alternative to the float64 scheme we use now. The alternative
would be enabled with something like #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP.
Benefits would include having a predictable precision behavior for all
allowed dates and times.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2002-03-15 18:36:16 | Re: Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-15 17:57:32 | Re: Time for 7.2.1? |