| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-02-22 15:45:00 |
| Message-ID: | 919.1487778300@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 02/22/2017 10:21 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Only in the catalog though, not the datums, right? I would think you
>> could just change the oid in the catalog the same as you would for a
>> table column.
> No, in the datums.
Yeah, I don't see any way that we could fob off float timestamps to an
extension that would be completely transparent at the pg_upgrade level.
And even a partial solution would be an enormous amount of fundamentally
dead-end work.
There has never been any project policy that promises everybody will be
able to pg_upgrade until the end of time. I think it's not unreasonable
for us to say that anyone still using float timestamps has to go through
a dump and reload to get to v10. The original discussion about getting
rid of them was ten years ago come May; that seems long enough.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-02-22 15:54:04 | Re: tablesample with partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-02-22 15:27:00 | Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster |