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

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Date
Msg-id 1287347668.16662.9.camel@jdavis-laptop
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 16:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm for that one.  Anybody working with fractional float timestamps
> should already understand that they aren't exact.  I can't see the value
> of expending any great amount of effort on this.

OK.

> There is maybe some argument for removing the float timestamp code
> altogether, but I think that that's probably premature.  They were
> still the default in 8.3, and we are still supporting in-place upgrade
> from 8.3.

Regarding Josh Drake's comment, do you have any insight about when
Redhat will start to ship with integer timestamps? That seems like the
determining factor for when we can deprecate floating-point timestamps.

Regards,Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types