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

Re: Latest datetime changes produce gcc complaints

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Latest datetime changes produce gcc complaints
Date: 2002-01-01 03:06:15
Message-ID: 3C3127A7.8A00A3DF@fourpalms.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > ... Could we rename the one in datetime.h to a
> > non-conflicting name?

OK, renamed to "ISOTIME", since it is a field defined in ISO-8601. I did
a "make clean all install" and the regression tests pass.

> Of course this brings up the question of whether there were any other
> recent changes that will break ports.   Thomas, can you check on that?

Not sure what you mean here. I made changes in only a few files. Not
sure about other recent changes of course, any more than you are. Better
keep testing, eh?

> Don't know about the rest of the code.  Hope it works.  :-)

Without any more changes, it certainly works "better" than the old code.
Whether it breaks a case that used to work is not known, but all of the
regress tests plus more tests I've written all pass. Features which
didn't used to work now do, and some inconsistancies have been repaired.
These are all bug fixes, and I'll continue to poke at the docs to get
the features more completely illuminated (which is how I got to patching
in the first place).

                    - Thomas

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Laszlo HornyakDate: 2002-01-01 13:03:51
Subject: PL/(pg)J
Previous:From: Olivier PRENANTDate: 2001-12-31 22:23:11
Subject: Happy new year

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