JD == Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
JD 2. Fix the input/output functions in a special mode for dump/reload,
JDto make them true inverses.
That can be done by supporting the %A printf(3)/scanf(3) format.
-JimC
--
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
--
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 13:54 -0400, James Cloos wrote:
JD == Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
JD 2. Fix the input/output functions in a special mode for dump/reload,
JDto make them true inverses.
That can be done by supporting the %A printf(3)/scanf(3) format.
I don't happen to
JD == Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
JD 2. Fix the input/output functions in a special mode for dump/reload,
JD to make them true inverses.
JC That can be done by supporting the %A printf(3)/scanf(3) format.
JD I don't happen to see a %A format in the man page, but I doubt the
JD output
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com writes:
That said, the possiblity of hex i/o format for the float datatypes
would be welcome.
It's unportable, for two different reasons:
1. pg_dump output would become platform-specific. This is highly
undesirable.
2. The printf specifiers you want us to rely
TL == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
JC That said, the possiblity of hex i/o format for the float datatypes
JC would be welcome.
TL It's unportable, for two different reasons:
TL 2. The printf specifiers you want us to rely on are not standard.
They are in C99.
TL 1. pg_dump output
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
TL == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
JC That said, the possiblity of hex i/o format for the float datatypes
JC would be welcome.
TL It's unportable, for two different reasons:
TL 2. The printf specifiers you want us
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
A reasonable conversion path might be to offer integer timestamps using
a different type name (e.g. inttimestamp) that always means integer
timestamps. Then, they could convert using ALTER TABLE, then do
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
One thing we have talked about is converting the page on read-in from
the backend. Since the timestamps are the same size as float or
integer, that might be possible.
Did we have a solution for the problem that
Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
One thing we have talked about is converting the page on read-in from
the backend. ?Since the timestamps are the same size as float or
integer, that might be possible.
Did we have a solution for the
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Greg Stark wrote:
Did we have a solution for the problem that understanding which
columns are timestamps requires having a tuple descriptor and parsing
the every tuple? That seems like it would a) be slow and b) require a
lot of high level code in the
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Would we be willing to make such assumptions to
support in-place upgrade of timestamps?
If something like that is true (I'm not sure it is) then we could
consider doing the equivalent of what we were talking about doing for
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Greg Stark wrote:
Did we have a solution for the problem that understanding which
columns are timestamps requires having a tuple descriptor and parsing
the every tuple? That seems like
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 10/17/2010 04:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... That's assuming that we think there are
no users who are depending on float timestamps for functionality (they
have a wider range than int timestamps don't they?).
Yes, they do.
Maybe we need to look at
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.
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Right. I think your argument that we should do nothing upthread is
exactly right.
OK.
A more interesting question is whether and how we can ease the
migration path from float timestamps to integer timestamps. Even
without range types,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
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
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
A reasonable conversion path might be to offer integer timestamps using
a different type name (e.g. inttimestamp) that always means integer
timestamps. Then, they could convert using ALTER TABLE, then do an
in-place upgrade.
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
whereas an int-timestamp build sees these inputs as all the same.
Thus, to get into trouble you'd need to have a unique index on data that
conflicts at the microsecond scale but not at the tenth-of-a-microsecond
scale. This seems implausible.
I'm working on the design for Range Types for 9.1:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/RangeTypes
But I think that floating-point timestamps may pose a problem. In this
thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2010-08/msg00378.php
I pointed out that floating-point timestamps can
On Oct 17, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
3. Somehow deprecate floating point timestamps or make them unusable in
conjunction with Range Types. I'm not sure if there is demand to keep
them alive or not.
+1
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 10:00 -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Oct 17, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
3. Somehow deprecate floating point timestamps or make them unusable in
conjunction with Range Types. I'm not sure if there is demand to keep
them alive or not.
This seems the best
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
What should be done? I see a few options:
1. Do nothing. Floating-point timestamps aren't the default, and the bug
reports are likely to be few and far between (but those that encounter
the bug are likely to be very frustrated).
I'm for that one. Anybody
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
The only major distribution that I know of that ships the deprecated
configuration is RedHat/Fedora. I don't know when that will change.
Red Hat switched to integer datetimes as of 8.4 ... just like upstream.
Please don't imagine that you can
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 16:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm for that one. Anybody working with fractional float timestamps
should already understand that they aren't exact. I can't see the value
of expending any great amount of effort on this.
OK.
There is maybe some argument for removing the
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 16:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
There is maybe some argument for removing the float timestamp code
altogether, but I think that that's probably premature. They were
still the default in 8.3, and we are still supporting in-place upgrade
On 10/17/2010 04:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
At the earliest, we could consider dropping them when we drop support
for in-place upgrade from 8.3 --- not only direct upgrade, but through
multiple pg_upgrade steps. That's assuming that we think there are
no users who are depending on float
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 16:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
The only major distribution that I know of that ships the deprecated
configuration is RedHat/Fedora. I don't know when that will change.
Red Hat switched to integer datetimes as of 8.4 ...
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
The only major distribution that I know of that ships the deprecated
configuration is RedHat/Fedora. I don't know when that will change.
If only we knew someone in Redhat :)
iirc the issue was binary upgrades. So
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 15:52 -0700, Greg Stark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
The only major distribution that I know of that ships the deprecated
configuration is RedHat/Fedora. I don't know when that will change.
If only we knew
29 matches
Mail list logo
