Give the discussion on this. Is this small patch being considered for
inclusion? If not, what do I need to change to make it acceptable?
Thanks,
wt
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Warren Turkal <turkal@google.com> wrote:
> PosgreSQL hackers,
>
> Here's an initial bit of my attempt at cleaning up the the timestamp datatype.
> I have gone through the backend and made a couple small changes to stop using
> the HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP define to select a type in code by creating typedefs
> in a header and using the typedef in the code. I think this small bit is ready
> for inclusion for this small bit, but I have a couple questions for further
> work.
>
> 1) Is there a reason that header information is duplicated between normal
> posgresql include and ecpg includes instead of defining the info in one place
> and #including it into the files that need it?
>
> 2) Would it be reasonable to change timestamp.h into a file that includes other
> files that define the specific parts depending on HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP instead
> of testing for HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP many times throughout timestamp.h? I think
> this might more cleanly separate the logic for the different timestamp types.
>
> Thanks,
> wt
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
