Re: [BUGS] dynamic-static date once again

2001-09-17 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think we have agreed that 'current' is a Bad Idea and should be >> eliminated from the date/time datatypes... > I've started purging it from the timestamp code I'm working on for 7.2. Oh good. Let's not forget to review the pg_proc entries after

Re: [BUGS] dynamic-static date once again

2001-09-16 Thread Thomas Lockhart
... > I think we have agreed that 'current' is a Bad Idea and should be > eliminated from the date/time datatypes... I've started purging it from the timestamp code I'm working on for 7.2. Should be gone by the start of beta... - Thomas ---(end of br

Re: [BUGS] dynamic-static date once again

2001-09-16 Thread Tom Lane
Tomasz Myrta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > create table KURSY( > id_kursu integer not null PRIMARY KEY, > id_trasy integer not null references TRASY, > data_kursudate not null, > limit_miejsc smallint not null > ); > CREATE INDEX ind_kur

[BUGS] dynamic-static date once again

2001-09-13 Thread Tomasz Myrta
Tom Lane wrote: > > Tomasz Myrta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why the first expression is 25 times slower? > > Hard to say, when you haven't shown us the schema. (Column datatypes, > definitions of available indexes, etc are all critical information for > this sort of question.) OK Don't pa