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
> Is the backend smart enough to not load and use a database with
> timestamp fields created with the representation not compiled into the
Postgres will refuse to start if the compiled-in datetime representation
doesn't match the datetime representation used by the specified data
> 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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-02-26 18:55:01|
|Subject: Re: Proposed changes to DTrace probe implementation |
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-02-26 18:44:44|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance|