| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Warren Turkal" <wturkal(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: timestamp refactor effort |
| Date: | 2008-01-13 01:23:33 |
| Message-ID: | 25162.1200187413@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Warren Turkal" <wturkal(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So...in the vein of my last mail, I have tried to create another patch
> for refactoring out some of the HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP ifdefs in the
> code in timestamp.c. I have attached the patch. Please let me know if
> this patch is acceptable and what I can do to continue this effort.
Hmm, PackedTime seems like a fairly random name for the type --- there's
not anything particularly "packed" about it IMO.
I'm a bit inclined to suggest just using the Timestamp typedef.
I guess though that there's some risk of confusion between values
that actually are "timestamp without time zone" and values that need
the same representation but aren't actually intended to represent a
specific point in time.
Maybe "TimeOffset" or "TimeValue" or something like that?
Other than the name game, I think you're headed in the right direction.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-13 01:56:23 | Make pg_dump suppress COMMENT ON SCHEMA public ? |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2008-01-13 00:20:41 | Re: Postgresql Materialized views |