Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support

S Murthy Kambhampaty <smk_va@yahoo.com> writes:
> "Consistent precision through the range of allowed
> values" sceems a feature worth having.

> I wonder why you are "not sure that many people need
> it".

Because almost nobody has complained about the lack of it.
(I'm talking about actual field experience of there being a
problem, not somebody objecting that it sounds like a
feature worth having.)

It should also be pointed out that we are still finding bugs in
the integer-datetimes code.  This is of course exactly because
it's not the default --- but I feel sure that the average user
who notices a difference at all, if we change the default,
will be much more likely to hit a bug than to benefit.

            regards, tom lane