Re: WIP: Make timestamptz_out less slow.

On 29 November 2015 at 14:00, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 2:20 AM, David Rowley
> <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Just to confirm, you mean this comment?
> >
> > int tm_year; /* relative to 1900 */
> >
> > Please let me know if you disagree, but I'm not sure it's the business of
> > this patch to fix that. If it's wrong now, then it was wrong before my
> > patch, so it should be a separate patch which fixes it.
> >
> > At this stage I don't quite know what the fix should be, weather it's
> doing
> > tm->tm_year -= 1900; in timestamp2tm() after the j2date() call, or if
> it's
> > just removing the misleading comment.
> >
> > I also don't quite understand why we bother having it relative to 1900
> and
> > not just base it on 0.
>
> That's fair. I defer to the judgement of the committer here.
>
> > Is there anything else you see that's pending before it can be marked as
> > ready for committer?
>
> Can't think of any reason not to. It's been marked "ready for committer".
>
>
Many thanks for reviewing this Peter.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services