On Jan 13, 2008 9:21 AM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Warren Turkal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a question. Are the low level representations of Timestamp and
TimestampTZ the same?
They're the same but the interpretations are different, which is why
I think it's useful to have
On Jan 12, 2008 5:23 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, PackedTime seems like a fairly random name for the type --- there's
not anything particularly packed about it IMO.
I'm a bit inclined to suggest just using the Timestamp typedef.
I guess though that there's some risk of confusion
-my gmail account
On Jan 13, 2008 12:13 AM, Warren Turkal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 5:23 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, PackedTime seems like a fairly random name for the type --- there's
not anything particularly packed about it IMO.
I'm a bit inclined to
Warren Turkal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a question. Are the low level representations of Timestamp and
TimestampTZ the same?
They're the same but the interpretations are different, which is why
I think it's useful to have two typedefs as a way of documenting what
any given value is
Warren Turkal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So...in the vein of my last mail, I have tried to create another patch
for refactoring out some of the HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP ifdefs in the
code in timestamp.c. I have attached the patch. Please let me know if
this patch is acceptable and what I can do to
So...in the vein of my last mail, I have tried to create another patch
for refactoring out some of the HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP ifdefs in the
code in timestamp.c. I have attached the patch. Please let me know if
this patch is acceptable and what I can do to continue this effort.
Thanks,
wt
From
