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

Re: Re: [GENERAL] +/- Inf for float8's

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] +/- Inf for float8's
Date: 2001-06-05 04:21:02
Message-ID: 12810.991714862@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> On a modestly related note, I'm come over to the notion that the
> date/time value 'current' could be ripped out eventually. Tom, isn't
> that the only case for those types which bolluxes up caching of
> date/time types?

Yes, I believe so.  At least, that was the consideration that led me
to mark those functions noncachable ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-05 04:29:20
Subject: Re: Mirrors not tracking main ftp site?
Previous:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2001-06-05 03:46:34
Subject: Re: Question about inheritance

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