Re: Integer datetimes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: Integer datetimes
Date
Msg-id 1178379487.18303.112.camel@goldbach
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Integer datetimes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Integer datetimes  (Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 11:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We've so far managed to avoid having any hard dependency on a working
> int64 type, but this would certainly be one.  I don't really think the
> code-size-reduction argument is strong enough to justify that.

What benefit do we get from avoiding this dependency? Can we really
avoid a dependency on a 64-bit integral type in the long run?

> 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?

-Neil




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: array type name mangling
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Cache plan invalidation