Re: timestamp refactor effort

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Warren Turkal" <turkal(at)google(dot)com>
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 17:21:34
Message-ID: 6070.1200244894@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Warren Turkal" <turkal(at)google(dot)com> writes:
> I have a question. Are the low level representations of Timestamp and
> TimestampTZ the same?

They're the same but the interpretations are different, which is why
I think it's useful to have two typedefs as a way of documenting what
any given value is intended to be. The argument for having a third
typedef would be exactly the same: to help document what a value is
intended to be.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2008-01-13 17:31:49 Re: Make pg_dump suppress COMMENT ON SCHEMA public ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-01-13 17:17:20 Re: Make pg_dump suppress COMMENT ON SCHEMA public ?