From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: integer datetimes |
Date: | 2007-02-14 17:06:05 |
Message-ID: | 20070214170605.GF26194@svr2.hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:27:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > Our docs for the integer datetime option says:
> > Note also that the integer datetimes
> > code is newer than the floating-point code, and we still find bugs in it
> > from time to time.
>
> > Is the last sentence about bugs really true anymore? At least the buildfarm
> > seems to have a lot *more* machines with it enabled than without.
>
> Buildfarm proves only that the regression tests don't expose any bugs,
> not that there aren't any.
>
> > (I'm thinking about making it the defautl for the vc++ build, which is
> > why I came across that)
>
> FWIW, there are several Linux distros that build their RPMs that way,
> so it's not like people aren't using it. But it seems like we find bugs
> in the datetime/interval stuff all the time, as people trip over
> different weird edge cases.
Certainly, but is it more likely to trip on these in the integer
datetime case, really?
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-14 17:18:42 | Re: HOT WIP Patch - version 1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-14 17:03:57 | Re: Plan for compressed varlena headers |