Jim Nasby wrote:
> On May 5, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Neil Conway wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 11:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not necessarily opposed to changing the default configure  
> >> selection,
> >> but I am opposed to removing the FP code entirely.
> >
> > I would be satisfied with changing the default to integer and
> > deprecating the FP code (but keeping it around as a configure option).
> > Are there any objections to doing this for 8.3?
> One question... I've always assumed that FP date times suffers from  
> the inexact math issues that floats do; is that true?
> The only use I can think of for huge date values would be astronomy.  
> I know they deal with huge numbers, so maybe huge times as well. If  
> there is that kind of demand perhaps we'd want to continue supporting  
> FP dates... maybe via contrib, or as a different base data type.

Also, are we sure we can load a dump that used the float format?  What
happens for a date out of int8 range?

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to