Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster
Date
Msg-id 20170222075345.mbzrmdaetdqfgitk@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-02-22 00:10:35 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/20/17 5:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-02-20 11:58:12 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > > That being said, I did wonder myself if we should just deprecate float
> > > timestamps as well.
> > 
> > I think we need a proper deprecation period for that, given that the
> > conversion away will be painful for pg_upgrade using people with big
> > clusters.  So I think we should fix this regardless... :(
> 
> I wounder if a separate "floatstamp" data type might fit the bill there. It
> might not be completely seamless, but it would be binary compatible.

I don't really see what'd that solve.

- Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] tablesample with partitioned tables
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GRANT EXECUTE ON FUNCTION foo() TO bar();