On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 06:18:32PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 4:58 PM Amul Sul <[email protected]> wrote: >> One question: Regarding date2timestamp_no_overflow(), should we rename >> it to date2double? We can't use date2timestamp_safe because we already >> have that function. The renaming is relevant because this function >> converts a date to the double data type, which allows us to remove the >> "_no_overflow" extension. > > Makes sense to me.
Yes, it would be nice to change all this area at once to remain consistent across the board. date2timestamp_no_overflow() is the last "no_overflow" routine in date.h. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
