| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: For production: 8.4 or 8.3? |
| Date: | 2009-07-28 00:04:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1248739471.14534.36.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 19:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > because RH really can't be used as a production PostgreSQL server (if
> > date based data is important)
>
> I have open bugs about the lack of in-place upgrade. I have never once
> heard a customer complain about FP timestamps. So your position is
> nonsense.
Most customers wouldn't even understand the problem. We have systems we
have to custom maintain due to PostgreSQL having ghost data because of
the floating point based timestamp storage.
The problem is very simple. If you run on RH by default you have an
opportunity for data that will disappear in a practical sense. You know
this is true. My response is not nonsense. The data is still there but
it is floating point based and thus, inexact. The where clause that you
expect to retrieve the data, may not.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Wilson | 2009-07-28 00:08:38 | Re: general question on two-partition table |
| Previous Message | Tim Uckun | 2009-07-27 23:55:57 | A question about the permissions |