| From: | "Warren Turkal" <turkal(at)google(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Warren Turkal" <wturkal(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: timestamp refactor effort |
| Date: | 2008-01-13 08:13:24 |
| Message-ID: | 8c3d85470801130013y7a1614a8lcdfd32b64072dc77@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 12, 2008 5:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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?
I do agree that Timestamp seems to express the same thing PackedTime
does Should we rename Timestamp to TimeOffset?
> Other than the name game, I think you're headed in the right direction.
Thanks.
I have a question. Are the low level representations of Timestamp and
TimestampTZ the same?
wt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Warren Turkal | 2008-01-13 08:22:37 | Re: timestamp refactor effort |
| Previous Message | Sim Zacks | 2008-01-13 06:09:47 | Re: 8.2.4 serious slowdown |