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

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster
Date
Msg-id fece0003-6ede-ca8b-8f26-3c6fa899583d@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster
Next
From: Vaishnavi Prabakaran
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq