Re: integer datetimes

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:38:12PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> >
> >>Our docs for the integer datetime option says:
> >>Note also that the integer datetimes
> >>code is newer than the floating-point code, and we still find bugs in it
> >>from time to time.
> >>
> >
> >
> >>Is the last sentence about bugs really true anymore? At least the
> >>buildfarm
> >>seems to have a lot *more* machines with it enabled than without.
> >>
> >
> >Buildfarm proves only that the regression tests don't expose any bugs,
> >not that there aren't any.
> >
> >
> >>(I'm thinking about making it the defautl for the vc++ build, which is
> >>why I came across that)
> >>
> >
> >FWIW, there are several Linux distros that build their RPMs that way,
> >so it's not like people aren't using it. But it seems like we find bugs
> >in the datetime/interval stuff all the time, as people trip over
> >different weird edge cases.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I think it's disappointing, to say the least, that we treat this code as
> a sort of second class citizen. BTW, the buildfarm has a majority of
> machines using it by design - it's in the default set of options in the
> distributed config file. If we think there are bugs we haven't found,
> then we need to engage in some sort of analytical effort to isolate
> them. I don't see any reason in principle why this code should be any
> more buggy than the float based datetimes, and I see plenty of reason in
> principle why we should make sure it's right.

That was exactly what I thought, which is why I was kinda surprised to
see that note in the configure stuff.

If we go with that, then we can say that *any* new feature is less
tested, no? ;-)

//Magnus