Give the discussion on this. Is this small patch being considered for inclusion? If not, what do I need to change to make it acceptable?
Thanks, wt On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PosgreSQL hackers, > > Here's an initial bit of my attempt at cleaning up the the timestamp > datatype. > I have gone through the backend and made a couple small changes to stop using > the HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP define to select a type in code by creating typedefs > in a header and using the typedef in the code. I think this small bit is > ready > for inclusion for this small bit, but I have a couple questions for further > work. > > 1) Is there a reason that header information is duplicated between normal > posgresql include and ecpg includes instead of defining the info in one place > and #including it into the files that need it? > > 2) Would it be reasonable to change timestamp.h into a file that includes > other > files that define the specific parts depending on HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP > instead > of testing for HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP many times throughout timestamp.h? I > think > this might more cleanly separate the logic for the different timestamp types. > > Thanks, > wt > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
