Warren Turkal escribió:
> On Jan 3, 2008 8:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > Do we really need "fhour_t" and "fminute_t" on top of "fsec_t"?
> > > This seems like a bad factorization ...
> >
> > After some more thought: I think that what's bugging me is that "fsec_t"
> > is intended to denote "fractional seconds".  The other cases you have
> > here seem not to be intended to be "fractional hours" or "fractional
> > minutes".  I'm not quite sure what the right abstraction is, but it
> > doesn't seem to be that.
> 
> I thought it meant "field seconds". That's why I used fhour_t and
> fminute_t. I'll think about a better name.

Perhaps what you want here is to define a type for calculation results
(double/int64).  Whether it is used in the code for minutes or hours is
irrelevant to the typedef.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

• Re: timestamp typedefs at 2008-01-04 05:27:05 from Warren Turkal

Responses

• Re: timestamp typedefs at 2008-01-05 07:23:56 from Warren Turkal

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Markus Schiltknecht	Date: 2008-01-04 12:29:55
	Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Previous:	From: Richard Huxton	Date: 2008-01-04 10:59:43
	Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps