Received: from golem.jpl.nasa.gov (IDENT:root@hectic-1.jpl.nasa.gov
	[128.149.68.203]) by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA03736
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>;
	Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:13:15 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu)
Received: from alumni.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by golem.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA13108;
	Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:13:38 GMT
Sender: tgl@mythos.jpl.nasa.gov
Message-ID: <36B5B691.F9963939@alumni.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:13:37 +0000
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Organization: Caltech/JPL
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i686)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Herouth Maoz <herouth@oumail.openu.ac.il>
CC: Gregory W Burnham <gburnham@sfu.ca>, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
References: <l03110705b2db5fd79a43@[147.233.159.109]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > 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