Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> Notably, the FP datetime code doesn't depend on having a
>> functional int64 type, but in 2007, are there really any platforms we
>> care about that don't have such a type?

> That is really the only question, AFAIR.

We've so far managed to avoid having any hard dependency on a working
int64 type, but this would certainly be one.  I don't really think the
code-size-reduction argument is strong enough to justify that.  The
datetime code seems relatively stable at this point, so the maintenance
overhead of the code as it stands is not high.

I'm not necessarily opposed to changing the default configure selection,
but I am opposed to removing the FP code entirely.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to