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

Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: S Murthy Kambhampaty <smk_va(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support
Date: 2005-05-14 23:42:45
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
S Murthy Kambhampaty <smk_va(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> "Consistent precision through the range of allowed
> values" sceems a feature worth having.

> I wonder why you are "not sure that many people need
> it".

Because almost nobody has complained about the lack of it.
(I'm talking about actual field experience of there being a
problem, not somebody objecting that it sounds like a
feature worth having.)

It should also be pointed out that we are still finding bugs in
the integer-datetimes code.  This is of course exactly because
it's not the default --- but I feel sure that the average user
who notices a difference at all, if we change the default,
will be much more likely to hit a bug than to benefit.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: S Murthy KambhampatyDate: 2005-05-15 00:42:55
Subject: Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support
Previous:From: Tomaz BorstnarDate: 2005-05-14 23:00:59
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: two new PostgreSQL security problems found

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group