Re: Integer datetimes

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Integer datetimes
Date: 2007-05-05 10:41:37
Message-ID: 60075.75.177.135.163.1178361697.squirrel@www.dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> Notably, the FP datetime code doesn't depend on having a
>> functional int64 type, but in 2007, are there really any platforms we
>> care about that don't have such a type?
>
> That is really the only question, AFAIR. The integer datetimes
> implementation on a 32-bit type would have a range of about 1 hour (or
> about 1 month, if you reduce it to millisecond precision), which would
> make it totally useless.
>
> If we wanted to move toward requiring a 64-bit type, we should put some
> big warning into configure now that yells at the user if they don't
> have that type. And if no one complains, we can make it a requirement
> in a later release.
>

Can we discover anything useful from existing configure logs? If so, maybe
we can survey the buildfarm database.

Incidentally, use of integer datetimes has been in the default config set
on the buildfarm from day one, because it seems to me far saner, in
principle, to use fixed precision for them, so I cerainly agree with
Neil's goal.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2007-05-05 10:55:07 Re: New idea for patch tracking
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-05-05 10:21:04 Re: New idea for patch tracking