On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:43:48PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
> On October 9, 2018 1:40:34 PM PDT, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:31:19PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 2018-10-09 21:26:31 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:22:37PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> > > In-Reply-To:
> >> > > <20180928223240.kgwc4czzzekrpsid@alap3.anarazel.de> As
> >> > > discussed below (at [1]), I think we should remove $subject.
> >I plan
> >> > > to do so, unless somebody protests soon-ish. I thought it'd
> >> > > be
> >better
> >> > > to call attention to this in a new thread, to make sure
> >> > > people
> >had a
> >> > > chance to object.
> >> >
> >> > How much time would someone have to convert the timetravel
> >> > piece of contrib/spi to use non-deprecated time types in order
> >> > to make this window?
> >>
> >> "this window"?
> >>
> >> It's not entirely trivial, but also not that hard. It'd break
> >existing
> >> users however, as obviously their tables wouldn't dump / load or
> >> pg_upgrade into a working state.
> >>
> >> But I think spi/timetravel is not something people can actually
> >> use /
> >do
> >> use much, the functionality is way too limited in practice, the
> >> datatypes have been arcane for about as long as postgres existed,
> >> etc. And the code isn't fit to serve as an example.
> >>
> >> In my opinion it has negative value at this point.
> >
> >I suppose the proposals to add the standard-conformant temporal
> >stuff would make this moot, but I don't recall a complete patch for
> >that.
>
> spi/timetravel is just a trigger. Can be written in a few lines of
> plpgsql. What's functionality of your concern here? Comparing it
> to actual temporal functionality doesn't strike me as meaningful.
Fair enough.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
