Re: [HACKERS] Problem with copying abstimes

> Hey Darren or Frank, you haven't indicated how stale AIX 3.2.5 is. Why
> should anyone keep spending time on it when AIX 4.1 is available?

I sent a message back to the list, but evidently it didn't make past our
provider.  Oh, well.   325 is very alive and kicking.  IBM does currently
support it, for how much longer is anyone's guess, but it _does_ have a
_big_big_ install base.  Answer to the 2nd part is $$$$$.  Brings to mind
the old adage that I can't begin to count how many times I'd wished I'd
followed - "Don't !*@& with a working system."


> > I personally'll wait for the "Grand Unified Date", ala
> > Oracle, but me thinks I'm gonna need a very comfy chair to wait in. :)
>
> Uh, what does a "Grand Unified Date" do which datetime doesn't? (It's OK
> to keep the list short :)

I guess this boils down to my use of Oracle and my decided favoritism towards
it and it's datatypes/functions.  Postgres dates seem to be "too flexible" if
you will.  Postgres needs something like the TO_CHAR(), TO_DATE() and
TO_NUMBER() functions for converting and formating the various data types.

Might as well stoke the fire...*asbestos suit on*

Why do we now have date, abstime and datetime?  Why not deprecate the old
postgres date and abstime for v7.0 and rename the datetime to be the ansi type
date type?  I realize that people will have to change scripts and code, but it
happens, projects progress.  Try to keep the old stuff around and you end of
with messes like the seg/offset PC memory hack. :)

Datetime seems to be able to do everything the other two can, why not [lt]ighten
up the code a bit?  Anyways, "Flexibility breeds bugs."


Preparing for the heat...

darrenk@insightdist.com

------------------------------