Re: Integer datetimes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Integer datetimes
Date
Msg-id 60075.75.177.135.163.1178361697.squirrel@www.dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Integer datetimes  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> Notably, the FP datetime code doesn't depend on having a
>> functional int64 type, but in 2007, are there really any platforms we
>> care about that don't have such a type?
>
> That is really the only question, AFAIR.  The integer datetimes
> implementation on a 32-bit type would have a range of about 1 hour (or
> about 1 month, if you reduce it to millisecond precision), which would
> make it totally useless.
>
> If we wanted to move toward requiring a 64-bit type, we should put some
> big warning into configure now that yells at the user if they don't
> have that type.  And if no one complains, we can make it a requirement
> in a later release.
>


Can we discover anything useful from existing configure logs? If so, maybe
we can survey the buildfarm database.

Incidentally, use of integer datetimes has been in the default config set
on the buildfarm from day one, because it seems to me far saner, in
principle, to use fixed precision for them, so I cerainly agree with
Neil's goal.

cheers

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Andrew Dunstan"
Date:
Subject: Re: New idea for patch tracking
Next
From: roger
Date:
Subject: Re: how does one set the plpython python interpreter?