-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49:19AM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:31:05AM -0800, Scott Bailey wrote: > > Jeff Davis wrote: > > >On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 10:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Would it be OK if we handled float timestamp ranges as continuous > > and int64 timestamps discrete? > > That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Whatever timestamp ranges > are, float and int64 should be treated the same way so as not to get > "surprises" due to implementation details.
This alone would practically preclude discrete -- int and float would behave quite differently (float's "granules" growing towards the edges or having to choose a bigger granule for float than for int in the first place). [...] > FWIW, I think it would be a good idea to treat timestamps as > continuous in all cases. This would come as a corollary from the above Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLKODXBcgs9XrR2kYRAlpLAJ9nO5f0SHwX8A4CjTn6c/xyZdim1ACdGHTq Fwn5ygKvCDFGadufOYPGrfA= =ivCP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers