Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From S Murthy Kambhampaty
Subject Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support
Date
Msg-id 20050515004255.77471.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support  (S Murthy Kambhampaty <smk_va@yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-admin
--- Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Because almost nobody has complained about the lack
> of it.
> (I'm talking about actual field experience of there
> being a
> problem, not somebody objecting that it sounds like
> a
> feature worth having.)
>
> It should also be pointed out that we are still
> finding bugs in
> the integer-datetimes code.  This is of course
> exactly because
> it's not the default --- but I feel sure that the
> average user
> who notices a difference at all, if we change the
> default,
> will be much more likely to hit a bug than to
> benefit.

It certainly did seem like a marginal improvement, but
an improvment nontheless, back when we deployed 7.4 (I
thing the feature was introduced in 7.3).  Now that
we've switched to FC3, it was a minor inconvenience to
have to rebuild the RPM just for this feature, and I
was wondering if there's been enough testing to make
it a default.  Your answer clearly is "no".  Allright.

I wonder if the bugs you're finding are serious enough
to warrant dumping the data and restoring it to a
version without integer-datetimes?

Thanks,
   Murthy




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support
Next
From:
Date:
Subject: DB replicators comparison; (vs. DB upgrade via pg_dump)