On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 04/13/2012 06:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> But (a) I *don't* want to seriously break things, and don't see a need >> to; (b) interval is expensive and has got its own problems, notably an >> internal limitation to usec resolution that we would not be able to get >> rid of easily. > > A straight float seems pretty future proof compared to a usec resolution > interval. Jim was commenting in the same direction I already did, that ns > resolution is not impossible to see coming. > > I also expect to compute plenty of derived statistics from these numbers. > Interval math is good enough that I'm sure such things could be done, but > it seems odd to start with those units. I appreciate that the interval type > has a nice purist feel to it. My pragmatic side says we're going to pay > overhead to create in that type, only to find people end up converting it > right back to other types for easier math tricks.
I'm still rooting for numeric. As somebody said upthread, performance ain't critical here; and that lets us whack around the internal representation however we like without worrying about it. -- 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
