Re: regression failure - horology

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: regression failure - horology
Дата
Msg-id 12472.1045903221@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на regression failure - horology  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> I'm seeing a regression failure on the horology test on two different 
> machines. I'd venture a guess that it is related to this change:
>    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2003-02/msg00166.php

It seems to be a problem with signed vs unsigned 8-byte integer
timestamps.  Now that I look at it, the patch actually advertises this:
    When timestamps are stored as eight-byte integers (a compile-time    option), microsecond precision is available
overthe full range of    values. However eight-byte integer timestamps have a reduced range    of dates from 4713 BC up
to294276 AD.
 

which seems to make it rather foolish to include horology tests for
dates past 294276 AD.

John, you need to rethink this.  Regression tests that fail with
--enable-integer-datetimes will not do.  Is it even a good idea to claim
a range of dates up to 5874897 AD?  The 8-byte-int representation is
probably the wave of the future.  As such, anything it can't do is
not something we want to commit to supporting.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: regression failure - horology
Следующее
От: "Jeroen T. Vermeulen"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: regression failure - horology