Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Our docs for the integer datetime option says:
Note also that the integer datetimes
code is newer than the floating-point code, and we still find bugs in it
from time to time.
Is the last sentence about bugs really true anymore? At least the buildfarm
seems to have a lot *more* machines with it enabled than without.
Buildfarm proves only that the regression tests don't expose any bugs,
not that there aren't any.
(I'm thinking about making it the defautl for the vc++ build, which is
why I came across that)
FWIW, there are several Linux distros that build their RPMs that way,
so it's not like people aren't using it. But it seems like we find bugs
in the datetime/interval stuff all the time, as people trip over
different weird edge cases.
I think it's disappointing, to say the least, that we treat this code as
a sort of second class citizen. BTW, the buildfarm has a majority of
machines using it by design - it's in the default set of options in the
distributed config file. If we think there are bugs we haven't found,
then we need to engage in some sort of analytical effort to isolate
them. I don't see any reason in principle why this code should be any
more buggy than the float based datetimes, and I see plenty of reason in
principle why we should make sure it's right.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster