Re: timestamp typedefs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Warren Turkal
Subject Re: timestamp typedefs
Date
Msg-id 7fdf8c4d0801032127p6bc2b8dfy96f5c517aa71c391@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: timestamp typedefs  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: timestamp typedefs  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jan 3, 2008 8:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

I thought it meant "field seconds". That's why I used fhour_t and
fminute_t. I'll think about a better name.

wt


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: timestamp typedefs
Next
From: "Gokulakannan Somasundaram"
Date:
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps