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
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 |