From: | "Warren Turkal" <turkal(at)google(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: timestamp refactor effort |
Date: | 2008-01-13 08:22:37 |
Message-ID: | 8c3d85470801130022i34a95727ub966b6f7fb7370c0@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-my gmail account
On Jan 13, 2008 12:13 AM, Warren Turkal <turkal(at)google(dot)com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 5:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Hmm, PackedTime seems like a fairly random name for the type --- there's
> > not anything particularly "packed" about it IMO.
> >
> > I'm a bit inclined to suggest just using the Timestamp typedef.
> > I guess though that there's some risk of confusion between values
> > that actually are "timestamp without time zone" and values that need
> > the same representation but aren't actually intended to represent a
> > specific point in time.
> >
> > Maybe "TimeOffset" or "TimeValue" or something like that?
>
> I do agree that Timestamp seems to express the same thing PackedTime
> does Should we rename Timestamp to TimeOffset?
>
> > Other than the name game, I think you're headed in the right direction.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> I have a question. Are the low level representations of Timestamp and
> TimestampTZ the same?
>
> wt
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Clodoaldo | 2008-01-13 08:50:48 | Re: 8.2.4 serious slowdown |
Previous Message | Warren Turkal | 2008-01-13 08:13:24 | Re: timestamp refactor effort |