| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2017-02-20 12:03:15 |
| Message-ID: | 452dabb1-713b-ceef-7307-9315690935d6@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20/02/17 12:04, 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... :(
>
That's a good point.
Attached should fix the logical replication problems. I am not quite
sure if there is anything in physical that needs changing.
I opted for GetCurrentIntegerTimestamp() in the reply code as that's the
same coding walreceiver uses.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| logical-rep-int-timestamps.diff | text/x-diff | 3.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2017-02-20 12:15:14 | Re: SCRAM authentication, take three |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2017-02-20 11:51:13 | Re: SCRAM authentication, take three |