| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Klint Gore <kg(at)kgb(dot)une(dot)edu(dot)au>, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, Nicholas <hb(at)x256(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] BUG #1993: Adding/subtracting negative time intervals |
| Date: | 2005-10-26 15:27:55 |
| Message-ID: | 6527.1130340475@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not hardly. I tried already. The existing timestamp_mi behavior is
>> probably as close to 8.0 as we can get given the change in underlying
>> representation.
> You mean the '6432 hours' is a worse change, OK.
Well, it's sure not a small change, and we're still undecided whether
that's what we want in the long run.
Also, we'd have to deal with some of the other TODO items I mentioned
before we could make it work at all. There's at least one regression
test that computes an interval larger than 2^31 hours (how do you think
I found out about that problem ;-))
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-26 15:34:52 | Re: Index name different from constraint name |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-26 15:24:20 | Re: BUG #2001: Signal 11 after concurrent inserts + updates |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-26 15:30:10 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #1993: Adding/subtracting negative time intervals |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-10-26 15:26:55 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #1993: Adding/subtracting negative |