--- Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please tell us why integer datetimes
should be enabled in our
RPMs by default?
We are not sure that many people need it, also it's
easy for someone to
add this support using the SRPMs provided.
Consistent precision through the range
S Murthy Kambhampaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consistent precision through the range of allowed
values sceems a feature worth having.
I wonder why you are not sure that many people need
it.
Because almost nobody has complained about the lack of it.
(I'm talking about actual field experience
--- Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because almost nobody has complained about the lack
of it.
(I'm talking about actual field experience of there
being a
problem, not somebody objecting that it sounds like
a
feature worth having.)
It should also be pointed out that we are still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, S Murthy Kambhampaty wrote:
Can integer datetimes support be added to the PGDG
distributed RPMS for Fedora at the next version
requiring an initdb.
Could you please tell us why integer datetimes should be enabled in our
RPMs by
Can integer datetimes support be added to the PGDG
distributed RPMS for Fedora at the next version
requiring an initdb. I've attached a diff to the
specfile for 8.0.1.
Thanks, Murthy
--- /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/postgresql-8.0.1-2PGDG.spec
2005-02-22 18:04:50.0 -0500
+++
