Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'd definitely be on board with just dropping the type altogether despite
>> Mark's concern.
> Then I vote for that option.
BTW, another possible compromise is to move abstime into a contrib
module; we've always accepted that contrib modules can be held to a
lower standard than core features. I'm not volunteering to do the
work for that, but it's worth contemplating.
Alternatively, we could turn the origin point for abstime into a
pg_control field, and regard changing it as a reason for a database
not being pg_upgrade'able unless it lacks any abstime columns.
regards, tom lane
