| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Integer datetimes |
| Date: | 2007-05-06 14:39:42 |
| Message-ID: | FF2AF55C-4F32-472A-848E-E999C6DB1187@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 5, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 11:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not necessarily opposed to changing the default configure
>> selection,
>> but I am opposed to removing the FP code entirely.
>
> I would be satisfied with changing the default to integer and
> deprecating the FP code (but keeping it around as a configure option).
> Are there any objections to doing this for 8.3?
One question... I've always assumed that FP date times suffers from
the inexact math issues that floats do; is that true?
The only use I can think of for huge date values would be astronomy.
I know they deal with huge numbers, so maybe huge times as well. If
there is that kind of demand perhaps we'd want to continue supporting
FP dates... maybe via contrib, or as a different base data type.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-05-06 14:56:24 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Teach tuplesort.c about "top N" sorting, in which only the first |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-06 14:32:14 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Teach tuplesort.c about "top N" sorting, in which only the first |