Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: fixes for date_part micro/millisecond precision

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: thomas(at)pgsql(dot)com
Cc: Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fixes for date_part micro/millisecond precision
Date: 2001-11-28 05:13:22
Message-ID: 1013.1006924402@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> Yes. Mixing the float with the int seems to invite math troubles though

True, any multi-member struct will be a huge PITA for arithmetic
operations.

Using int8 if available or float8 if not might work pretty nicely
now that I think about it, at least from a coding point of view.
You could hide a lot of the differences in the PG_GET and PG_RETURN
macros.

But do we want to have such a radical difference in accuracy and
range across platforms?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bill StudenmundDate: 2001-11-28 06:06:54
Subject: Re: Patch to add Heimdal kerberos support
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-11-28 05:07:44
Subject: Re: fixes for date_part micro/millisecond precision

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group