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

Re: timestamp typedefs

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gokulakannan SomasundaramDate: 2008-01-04 07:36:19
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-04 04:54:04
Subject: Re: timestamp typedefs

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