Re: integer datetimes

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.

cheers

andrew