Re: timestamp typedefs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: timestamp typedefs
Date
Msg-id 28482.1199422444@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: timestamp typedefs  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: timestamp typedefs  ("Warren Turkal" <wturkal@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Do we really need "fhour_t" and "fminute_t" on top of "fsec_t"?
> This seems like a bad factorization ...

After some more thought: I think that what's bugging me is that "fsec_t"
is intended to denote "fractional seconds".  The other cases you have
here seem not to be intended to be "fractional hours" or "fractional
minutes".  I'm not quite sure what the right abstraction is, but it
doesn't seem to be that.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: timestamp typedefs
Next
From: "Warren Turkal"
Date:
Subject: Re: timestamp typedefs