Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Date: 2010-10-17 20:40:23
Message-ID: 14403.1287348023@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 16:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There is maybe some argument for removing the float timestamp code
>> altogether, but I think that that's probably premature. They were
>> still the default in 8.3, and we are still supporting in-place upgrade
>> from 8.3.

> Regarding Josh Drake's comment, do you have any insight about when
> Redhat will start to ship with integer timestamps? That seems like the
> determining factor for when we can deprecate floating-point timestamps.

At the earliest, we could consider dropping them when we drop support
for in-place upgrade from 8.3 --- not only direct upgrade, but through
multiple pg_upgrade steps. That's assuming that we think there are
no users who are depending on float timestamps for functionality (they
have a wider range than int timestamps don't they?). I don't believe
that Red Hat's choices enter into this in the slightest: they aren't
doing anything different from users who compile from source.

Anyway the short answer seems to be that we can consider dropping them
when we next break on-disk compatibility.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-10-17 20:49:07 Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2010-10-17 20:34:28 Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types