Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Date
Msg-id 11781.1287714285@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>> Did we have a solution for the problem that understanding which
>> columns are timestamps requires having a tuple descriptor and parsing
>> the every tuple? That seems like it would a) be slow and b) require a
>> lot of high level code in the middle of a low-level codepath.

> Yep, that's what it requires.  It would rewrite in the new format.

In the case of the recent hstore fixes, we were able to put the burden
on the hstore functions themselves to do any necessary conversion.
I wonder if it'd be possible to do something similar here?  I haven't
chased the bits in any detail, but I'm thinking that integer timestamps
in a plausible range might all look like denormalized floats, and
conversely plausible float timestamps would look like ridiculously large
integer timestamps.  Would we be willing to make such assumptions to
support in-place upgrade of timestamps?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplifying replication
Next
From: Itagaki Takahiro
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions, this time with a patch