On Jan 4, 2008 4:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps what you want here is to define a type for calculation results
> (double/int64). Whether it is used in the code for minutes or hours is
> irrelevant to the typedef.
Okay...that sounds good. Do you have a good name for it?
Warren Turkal escribió:
> On Jan 3, 2008 8:54 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > Do we really need "fhour_t" and "fminute_t" on top of "fsec_t"?
> > > This seems like a bad factorization ...
> >
> > After some more thought: I think that what's bugging me is that "fsec_t"
> >
On Jan 3, 2008 8:54 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Do we really need "fhour_t" and "fminute_t" on top of "fsec_t"?
> > This seems like a bad factorization ...
>
> After some more thought: I think that what's bugging me is that "fsec_t"
> is intended to denote "fractional sec
I wrote:
> Do we really need "fhour_t" and "fminute_t" on top of "fsec_t"?
> This seems like a bad factorization ...
After some more thought: I think that what's bugging me is that "fsec_t"
is intended to denote "fractional seconds". The other cases you have
here seem not to be intended to be "fr
"Warren Turkal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have created the following patch in an effort to start cleaning up
> the timestamp datatype. Please let me know if something like this will
> help so that I know whether to keep going. BTW, it passes a "make
> check" AFAICT.
Do we really need "fhour_
Hello,
I have created the following patch in an effort to start cleaning up
the timestamp datatype. Please let me know if something like this will
help so that I know whether to keep going. BTW, it passes a "make
check" AFAICT.
Thanks,
wt
>From aa573956233e20da4f8230e9fddb936a92c7e814 Mon Sep 17
