| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster |
| Date: | 2017-02-22 07:53:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20170222075345.mbzrmdaetdqfgitk@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-02-22 00:10:35 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> 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.
I don't really see what'd that solve.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-02-22 08:07:12 | Re: GRANT EXECUTE ON FUNCTION foo() TO bar(); |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-02-22 07:51:46 | tablesample with partitioned tables |