Re: New version of money type

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
Cc: jim(at)nasby(dot)net, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New version of money type
Date: 2006-10-12 17:21:37
Message-ID: 14003.1160673697@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, my perception of that has always been "it needs to be upgraded or
>> removed". So if D'Arcy wants to work on the improvement angle, I have
>> no problem with him doing so. The thing we need to negotiate is "how
>> much improvement is needed to keep it in core".

> Well, the patch I submitted is definitely an improvement over the
> existing version. Are you saying that I have to make further
> improvements before these ones can be imported?

I didn't say that. I was responding to someone whose position seemed to
be "money is going to be removed, therefore you shouldn't work on it".
I wanted to know exactly what would need to be fixed before they'd not
want it removed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2006-10-12 17:22:17 Re: array_accum aggregate
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-10-12 17:18:17 Re: [HACKERS] Hints proposal