Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cfTjz-0007aB-CV for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:49:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cfTjy-0003xy-Rd for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:49:34 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cfTjx-0003xN-Jv for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:49:33 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cfTjv-0003N5-H2 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:49:33 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1JFnTvL001692; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:49:29 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster In-reply-to: References: <26788.1487455319@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:19:22 +0530" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1690.1487519369.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:49:29 -0500 Message-ID: <1691.1487519369@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Thoughts? Should we double down on trying to make this work according >> to the "all integer timestamps" protocol specs, or cut our losses and >> change the specs? > I vote for doubling down. It's bad enough that we have so many > internal details that depend on this setting; letting that cascade > into the wire protocol seems like it's just letting the chaos spread > farther and wider. How do you figure that it's not embedded in the wire protocol already? Not only the replicated data for a timestamp column, but also the client-visible binary I/O format, depend on this. I think having some parts of the protocol use a different timestamp format than other parts is simply weird, and as this exercise has shown, it's bug-prone as all get out. > Also, I wonder if we could consider deprecating and removing > --disable-integer-datetimes at some point. Seems like a different conversation. Although given the lack of replication bug reports so far, maybe nobody is using --disable-integer-datetimes anymore. Certainly, fixing these bugs by removing the --disable-integer-datetimes option would be a lot less painful than trying to make it actually work per protocol spec. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers