Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Thoughts? Should we double down on trying to make this work according
>> to the "all integer timestamps" protocol specs, or cut our losses and
>> change the specs?

> I vote for doubling down. It's bad enough that we have so many
> internal details that depend on this setting; letting that cascade
> into the wire protocol seems like it's just letting the chaos spread
> farther and wider.

How do you figure that it's not embedded in the wire protocol already?
Not only the replicated data for a timestamp column, but also the
client-visible binary I/O format, depend on this. I think having some
parts of the protocol use a different timestamp format than other parts
is simply weird, and as this exercise has shown, it's bug-prone as all
get out.

> Also, I wonder if we could consider deprecating and removing
> --disable-integer-datetimes at some point.

Seems like a different conversation. Although given the lack of
replication bug reports so far, maybe nobody is using
--disable-integer-datetimes anymore.

Certainly, fixing these bugs by removing the --disable-integer-datetimes
option would be a lot less painful than trying to make it actually work
per protocol spec.

regards, tom lane