| From: | David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |
| Date: | 2014-09-26 18:34:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZXO8fmFyfrPmNqN22_83jdK0Km=10CwtGHZWXq49T_XQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Agreed- they're independent considerations and the original concern was
> about the nonzero-to-zero issue, so I'd suggest we address that first,
> though in doing so we will need to consider what *actual* min values we
> should have for some cases which currently allow going to zero for the
> special case and that, I believe, makes this all 9.5 material and allows
> us a bit more freedom in deciding how to hanlde things more generally.
>
This is 9.5 material because 1) it isn't all that critical and, 2) we DO
NOT want a system to not come up because of a GUC paring error after a
minor-release update.
I don't get where we "need" to do anything else besides that...the whole
"actual min values" comment is unclear to me.
My thought on rounding is simply no-complaint, no-change; round-to-nearest
would be my first choice if implementing anew.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2014-09-26 18:38:25 | Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-09-26 18:33:53 | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |