-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49:19AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:31:05AM -0800, Scott Bailey wrote:
> > Jeff Davis wrote:
> > >On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 10:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Would it be OK if we handled float timestamp ranges as continuous
> > and int64 timestamps discrete?
>
> That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Whatever timestamp ranges
> are, float and int64 should be treated the same way so as not to get
> "surprises" due to implementation details.
This alone would practically preclude discrete -- int and float would
behave quite differently (float's "granules" growing towards the edges
or having to choose a bigger granule for float than for int in the first
place).
[...]
> FWIW, I think it would be a good idea to treat timestamps as
> continuous in all cases.
This would come as a corollary from the above
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLKODXBcgs9XrR2kYRAlpLAJ9nO5f0SHwX8A4CjTn6c/xyZdim1ACdGHTq
Fwn5ygKvCDFGadufOYPGrfA=
=ivCP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
