On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:43:48PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On October 9, 2018 1:40:34 PM PDT, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> > wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:31:19PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2018-10-09 21:26:31 +0200, David Fetter wrote: > >> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:22:37PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > >> > > In-Reply-To: > >> > > <20180928223240.kgwc4czzzekrp...@alap3.anarazel.de> As > >> > > discussed below (at [1]), I think we should remove $subject. > >I plan > >> > > to do so, unless somebody protests soon-ish. I thought it'd > >> > > be > >better > >> > > to call attention to this in a new thread, to make sure > >> > > people > >had a > >> > > chance to object. > >> > > >> > How much time would someone have to convert the timetravel > >> > piece of contrib/spi to use non-deprecated time types in order > >> > to make this window? > >> > >> "this window"? > >> > >> It's not entirely trivial, but also not that hard. It'd break > >existing > >> users however, as obviously their tables wouldn't dump / load or > >> pg_upgrade into a working state. > >> > >> But I think spi/timetravel is not something people can actually > >> use / > >do > >> use much, the functionality is way too limited in practice, the > >> datatypes have been arcane for about as long as postgres existed, > >> etc. And the code isn't fit to serve as an example. > >> > >> In my opinion it has negative value at this point. > > > >I suppose the proposals to add the standard-conformant temporal > >stuff would make this moot, but I don't recall a complete patch for > >that. > > spi/timetravel is just a trigger. Can be written in a few lines of > plpgsql. What's functionality of your concern here? Comparing it > to actual temporal functionality doesn't strike me as meaningful.
Fair enough. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
