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

Re: dynamic-static date once again

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tomasz Myrta <jasiek(at)lamer(dot)pl>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: dynamic-static date once again
Date: 2001-09-17 06:26:31
Message-ID: 3BA59797.7E1B570@fourpalms.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
...
> I think we have agreed that 'current' is a Bad Idea and should be
> eliminated from the date/time datatypes...

I've started purging it from the timestamp code I'm working on for 7.2.
Should be gone by the start of beta...

                     - Thomas

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-09-17 06:28:51
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [tao-users] FW: HEADS UP: CVSup timestamp bug]]
Previous:From: Rums DabsDate: 2001-09-17 06:01:16
Subject: CD-RW Scheduled Database Backup...

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-09-17 06:33:07
Subject: Re: Bug #443: Problem with time functions.
Previous:From: John SummerfieldDate: 2001-09-17 04:23:34
Subject: Re: SQLCODE==-209

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