Anastasia Lubennikova <> writes:
> 15.03.2016 22:28, David Steele:
>> I'm not in favor of the "4", either.  I think I would prefer

> This point is related to another patch 
> And added to this patch just for compatibility.
> If Tom wouldn't change the name of the macros there, I don't see any 
> reasons why should we do it in this patch.

Yeah, I didn't like the "4STAMPS" terminology at all.  It ended up being
moot for that patch, because the answer eventually turned out to be that
we needed to decouple the Julian-date boundaries from the datatype
boundaries altogether.  But I would've renamed those macros to something
else if they'd stayed.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to