Re: timestamp datatype cleanup

Give the discussion on this. Is this small patch being considered for
inclusion? If not, what do I need to change to make it acceptable?

Thanks,
wt

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Warren Turkal <turkal@google.com> wrote:
> PosgreSQL hackers,
>
>  Here's an initial bit of my attempt at cleaning up the the timestamp datatype.
>  I have gone through the backend and made a couple small changes to stop using
>  the HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP define to select a type in code by creating typedefs
>  in a header and using the typedef in the code. I think this small bit is ready
>  for inclusion for this small bit, but I have a couple questions for further
>  work.
>
>  1) Is there a reason that header information is duplicated between normal
>  posgresql include and ecpg includes instead of defining the info in one place
>  and #including it into the files that need it?
>
>  2) Would it be reasonable to change timestamp.h into a file that includes other
>  files that define the specific parts depending on HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP instead
>  of testing for HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP many times throughout timestamp.h? I think
>  this might more cleanly separate the logic for the different timestamp types.
>
>  Thanks,
>  wt
>
>  --
>  Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
>  To make changes to your subscription:
>  http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>