| From: | "Warren Turkal" <wturkal(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: timestamp typedefs |
| Date: | 2008-01-04 05:27:05 |
| Message-ID: | 7fdf8c4d0801032127p6bc2b8dfy96f5c517aa71c391@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
wt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2008-01-04 07:36:19 | Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-04 04:54:04 | Re: timestamp typedefs |