On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > IOW I don't think the range argument holds much water for keeping float > timestamps alive. The on-disk-compatibility argument does, though.
Right. I think your argument that we should "do nothing" upthread is exactly right. Deprecating float timestamps doesn't solve any real problem. As of today, we can assume that anyone who is still using float timestamps is doing so because they are doing in-place upgrade from an older version. If we do nothing, the worst thing that can possibly happen is that MAYBE they will have some difficulties if they use floating timestamps in combination with the range types Jeff is proposing to implement. Or, we can remove integer date time support and categorically prevent them from using pg_upgrade whether they care about range types or not, and whether they actually would have experienced problems with them or not. AFAICS, that's just being unfriendly to no purpose. A more interesting question is whether and how we can ease the migration path from float timestamps to integer timestamps. Even without range types, if someone does have a UNIQUE index on a timestamp column, could they get an error if they dump from a float-timestamp version of PG and restore onto an integer-timestamp version? How would we recommend that they recover from that situation? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers