Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Date: 2010-10-17 20:49:07
Message-ID: 4CBB6143.6050302@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/17/2010 04:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> At the earliest, we could consider dropping them when we drop support
> for in-place upgrade from 8.3 --- not only direct upgrade, but through
> multiple pg_upgrade steps. That's assuming that we think there are
> no users who are depending on float timestamps for functionality (they
> have a wider range than int timestamps don't they?).

Yes, they do.

Maybe we need to look at providing a bigtimestamp type or similar at
some stage. Or maybe the demand for it would be so low it should be an
add-on module.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-10-17 21:39:38 Re: WIP: extensible enums
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-17 20:40:23 Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types