> Well, we were gonna release it last weekend, but now it's waiting on
> sequence fixes (currently being tested). And Lockhart may also wish to
> hold it up while he looks at the recently reported timestamp_part
> problem. (Thomas, are you considering backpatching that?) One way
> or another I'd expect it next week sometime.
I'll consider backpatching once I have a chance to dive in.
It is somewhat complicated by the fact that my code tree is pretty
massively changed in this area as I implement an int64-based date/time
storage alternative to the float64 scheme we use now. The alternative
would be enabled with something like #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP.
Benefits would include having a predictable precision behavior for all
allowed dates and times.
- Thomas