Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix for documentation of timestamp type

2017-01-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> I find this a bit unclear, because the revised text kind of jumps back >>> and forth between the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix for documentation of timestamp type

2016-12-28 Thread Cynthia Shang
The latest patch attachment has a couple typos in it ("storead" instead of "stored"). I interpreted the final suggestion in the thread to mean 1) default stores in microseconds 2) deprecated compile-time option stores as seconds. If these assumptions are correct then the suggestion in the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix for documentation of timestamp type

2016-12-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I find this a bit unclear, because the revised text kind of jumps back >> and forth between the floating-point and integer formats. Perhaps >> something like this: > > Your

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix for documentation of timestamp type

2016-12-13 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > I find this a bit unclear, because the revised text kind of jumps back > and forth between the floating-point and integer formats. Perhaps > something like this: Your wording seems OK to me, although I'd drop the "instead".

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Fix for documentation of timestamp type

2016-12-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > I suggest to rewrite the documentation a bit to make it more clear that > by default timestamp is stored in microseconds. Corresponding patch is > attached. I find this a bit unclear, because the revised