Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not hardly. I tried already. The existing timestamp_mi behavior is
>> probably as close to 8.0 as we can get given the change in underlying
>> representation.
> You mean the '6432 hours' is a worse change, OK.
Well, it's sure not a small change, and we're still undecided whether
that's what we want in the long run.
Also, we'd have to deal with some of the other TODO items I mentioned
before we could make it work at all. There's at least one regression
test that computes an interval larger than 2^31 hours (how do you think
I found out about that problem ;-))
regards, tom lane
