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 usef
"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
-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 in
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 c
"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
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 77db4f
