From: Thomas G. Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
To: Herouth Maoz <herouth@oumail.openu.ac.il>
Cc: Gregory W Burnham <gburnham@sfu.ca>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:13:37 +0000
Message-ID: <36B5B691.F9963939@alumni.caltech.edu> (raw)
References: <l03110705b2db5fd79a43@[147.233.159.109]>
> > To quote a friend of mine, "Efficiency is an issue only when
> > inefficiency is a problem." But still, you want to be as
> > efficient as possible, right? In retrospec, it would have
> > been more efficient to store all four digits of the year, right?
> Actually, it would simply have postponed the problem to a later
> date...
*rolf* Good point. And I'd like to mention that Postgres *is* Y10K
compliant, for those needing to plan ahead :)
- Tom
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu, herouth@oumail.openu.ac.il, gburnham@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
In-Reply-To: <36B5B691.F9963939@alumni.caltech.edu>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox