| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list |
| Date: | 2000-01-17 11:13:35 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10001171210490.8593-100000@Puma.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > * Make Absolutetime/Relativetime int4 because time_t can be int8 on some
> > ports
> > Does this mean the abstime/reltime types or all of them? I thought the
> > former were deprecated anyway.
>
> abstime should probably be considered deprecated as a user type, but
> it is still used extensively internally and within the tuple
> structure. I'd be reluctant to wholesale replace it with
> timestamp/datetime, since that will take 8 bytes per value rather than
> 4.
Just so I understand this: The official SQL data types are "timestamp" and
"interval", right? Everything else will eventually be an alias or phased
out or whatever?
I've been itching to change the pg_shadow.valuntil column to timestamp
anyway, I suppose that would be a step in the right direction, or not?
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Elphick | 2000-01-17 12:43:44 | Foreign keys: unexpected result from ALTER TABLE... ADD CONSTRAINT... |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-17 11:07:43 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape |