Re: Floating point timestamps

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Floating point timestamps
Date: 2016-03-10 15:16:01
Message-ID: 20160310151601.GA51750@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> > Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > > Is the plan to remove support for floating point timestamps at some
> > > stage? If so, what is that waiting on, and would it provide
> > > sufficient warning if (say) 9.6 were documented as the last major
> > > release to support that build option?
> >
> > AFAIK there is no particular plan to do that. It's not like leaving
> > that code in place is costing us huge amounts of maintenance effort.
> Agreed, and I have little doubt that it's still used in the field given
> how long it was the default for some distributions.

... and the fact that you can pg_upgrade from old versions that had such
defaults, but only if the new install uses the same datetime
representation. IOW it's quite likely that there are versions in the
field still working with FP datetimes.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-03-10 15:20:31 Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-03-10 15:00:17 Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering