Re: [HACKERS] TransactionStateData and AbsoluteTime
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] TransactionStateData and AbsoluteTime |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 38C43B67.EEBF3964@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] TransactionStateData and AbsoluteTime (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] TransactionStateData and AbsoluteTime
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Shouldn't we use timestamp instead of AbsoluteTime in > > TransactionStateData? It also gives more precision. > Thomas was hesitant to using 8 byte types internally across the board. He > must have his reasons. Yes, I believe that I discussed it at that time, though not perhaps all of these points: I was hesitant to suggest a change which would increase the minimum size of a tuple. I was hesitant to tie the fundamental internal operation to modern floating point performance on machines (it is only recently that float calculations are comparable to ints). On 64 bit machines especially, it may be interesting to do a 64 bit int for the date/time types, which would give greater precision away from Y2K, but a more limited total range. To get a precision greater than 1 second, we would have to use a different time call from the OS. I assume that one would be fairly portable, but would then require a conversion of int8 to float, with some runtime expense. And I haven't seen a great demand for greater precision in the table structures, though istm that it might be of interest. - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: