Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8)
От | Anastasia Lubennikova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 56E93805.1020008@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8) (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
15.03.2016 22:28, David Steele: > On 3/4/16 2:56 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > >> On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> >>> I think that you should update documentation. At least description of >>> epoch on this page: >>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html >> Thank you very much for pointing where it is located (I saw only >> "to_timestamp(TEXT, TEXT)"). >> I'll think how to update it. > Vitaly, have you decided how to update this yet? > >>> 3. (nitpicking) I don't sure about "4STAMPS" suffix. "4" is nice >>> abbreviation, but it seems slightly confusing to me. >> It doesn't matter for me what it is called, it is short enough and >> reflects a type on which it is applied. >> What would the best name be for it? > Anastasia, any suggestions for a better name, or just leave it as is? > > I'm not in favor of the "4", either. I think I would prefer > JULIAN_MAXYEAR_STAMP. > This point is related to another patch https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/. And added to this patch just for compatibility. If Tom wouldn't change the name of the macros there, I don't see any reasons why should we do it in this patch. -- Anastasia Lubennikova Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: