From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster |
Date: | 2017-02-20 19:20:44 |
Message-ID: | 3873.1487618444@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The question to be asked is whether there is still anybody out there
>> using float timestamps. I'm starting to get dubious about it myself.
> I'm wondering if it has any effect that pg_config.h.win32 says
> /* Define to 1 if you want 64-bit integer timestamp and interval support.
> (--enable-integer-datetimes) */
> /* #undef USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES */
> Whereas pg_config.h.win32 says:
> /* Define to 1 if you want 64-bit integer timestamp and interval support.
> (--enable-integer-datetimes) */
> #define USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES 1
Er, what? For me, grep finds
src/include/pg_config.h.in: 836: #undef USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES
src/include/pg_config.h.win32: 630: /* #undef USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES */
> It looks like it was commit 2169e42bef9db7e0bdd1bea00b81f44973ad83c8
> that enabled integer datetimes by default, but that commit seems to
> not to have touched the Windows build scripts. Commit
> fcf053d7829f2d83829256153e856f9a36c83ffd changed MSVC over to use
> integer datetimes by default, but I'm not clear if there's any build
> environment where we rely on config.h.win32 but not Solution.pm?
Any such build would find itself without a defined value of BLCKSZ,
to mention just one of the settings that get appended by Solution.pm.
It does look like we expect pg_config.h.win32 to be usable standalone
for libpq-only Windows compiles, but it would never work for building
the backend. (I dunno whether the libpq-only scripts still work at
all or have bitrotted, but it's irrelevant for the question at hand.)
> If not, what exactly is pg_config.h.win32 for and to what degree does it
> need to be in sync with pg_config.h.in? The list of differences
> appears to be far more extensive than the header comment at the top of
> pg_config.h.win32 would lead one to believe.
Yeah, I think the maintenance of pg_config.h.win32 has been a bit more
haphazard than one could wish.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-02-20 19:25:45 | Re: SERIALIZABLE with parallel query |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-20 19:04:50 | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |