On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:23:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:19:47PM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> >> Well, it is already included. The current proposal is simply to
> >> improve the existing type. I guess you are arguing a different
> >> proposal altogether - to remove the existing type.
> > The existing type is depricated and has been since at least 8.1; so yes,
> > it's slated for removal.
> Well, my perception of that has always been "it needs to be upgraded or
> removed". So if D'Arcy wants to work on the improvement angle, I have
> no problem with him doing so. The thing we need to negotiate is "how
> much improvement is needed to keep it in core".
I think it's also important to protect for the possibility of a more
complete (and probably incompatible) type in the future, such as one
that stores what currency a value is in.
Hrm... does ANSI say anything about money types?
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-09-29 03:57:12|
|Subject: Re: Stored procedure array limits |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-09-29 03:36:18|
|Subject: Re: JAVA Support |