On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Huh? I understood what you said upthread to be that we have two ways >>> in existing releases (anything unreleased has zero standing in this >>> discussion): float8 sec in pg_stat_statements.total_time, and >>> int8 msec everywhere else. Did I miss something? > >> We also have int8 usec floating around. But even if we didn't, float8 >> msec would be a new one, regardless of whether it would be third or >> fourth... > > It would still be the second one, because it would replace the only use > of float8 sec, no? And more to the point, it converges us on msec being > the only exposed unit. > > The business about underlying microseconds is maybe not so good, but > I don't think we want to touch that right now. In the long run > I think it would make sense to converge on float8 msec as being the > standard for exposed timing values, because that is readily adaptable to > the underlying data having nsec or even better precision.
Hmm. Maybe we should think about numeric ms, which would have all the same advantages but without the round-off error. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
