Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Francisco Reyes" <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?
Date: 2008-05-09 07:15:57
Message-ID: dcc563d10805090015s10523e0dq5f274635e7419303@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Our timestamp has a much larger range than a 4-byte time_t, docs say:
>
> <entry>4713 BC</entry>
> <entry>294276 AD</entry>

Which is normally great. Doesn't it have greater precision in the
modern era or something like that?

If you compile for integer dates do they have the same range?

Also, that range is fine, unless you're tracking geological timeframes. :)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2008-05-09 07:17:23 Re: auto-vacuum questions
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-05-09 04:00:51 Re: Using Epoch to save timestamps in 4 bytes?