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

Re: code cleanup of timestamp code

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Warren Turkal <turkal(at)google(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: code cleanup of timestamp code
Date: 2008-02-26 18:54:02
Message-ID: 1204052042.29147.10.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 00:22 -0800, Warren Turkal wrote:
> As a result, I have a few questions about the timestamp code. In what
> instances is the floating point timestamp recommended?

One circumstance is when there isn't a native int64 type available. The
floating point datetime code is the traditional implementation -- until
recently the integer datetime code was less tested and more buggy,
although I don't think that is still the case. For 8.4 I'm planning to
submit a patch to make integer datetimes the default, per earlier
discussion.

> Is the backend smart enough to not load and use a database with
> timestamp fields created with the representation not compiled into the
> compiler?

Postgres will refuse to start if the compiled-in datetime representation
doesn't match the datetime representation used by the specified data
directory.

> And finally, would this work be welcome in PostgreSQL?

Yes, sounds like a useful improvement to me. There are quite a few
cleanups and refactorings that could be done to the datetime code.

-Neil



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-02-26 18:55:01
Subject: Re: Proposed changes to DTrace probe implementation
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-02-26 18:44:44
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

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