Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgXSk-0000e4-7N for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:00:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgXSj-0002oR-QD for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:00:09 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgXRK-0001E8-8O for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:58:42 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([2001:4830:167b::11]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgXRH-0006Ib-Kk for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:58:40 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 15C1D5F794; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:58:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:58:39 -0500 From: Stephen Frost To: Tom Lane Cc: Andres Freund , Jim Nasby , Petr Jelinek , Robert Haas , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster Message-ID: <20170222135838.GL9812@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <26788.1487455319@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1691.1487519369@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20170220070311.gscn7ppqbwlgdpjq@alap3.anarazel.de> <3bd3c551-8b23-45c8-27a2-97b5a922b130@2ndquadrant.com> <20170220110456.2jupmfhxlizykmmc@alap3.anarazel.de> <20170222075345.mbzrmdaetdqfgitk@alap3.anarazel.de> <21041.1487771008@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mekSat20LXiShal6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21041.1487771008@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/ X-Info: http://www.snowman.net X-Operating-System: Linux/3.13.0-91-generic (x86_64) X-Uptime: 08:57:16 up 228 days, 15:21, 12 users, load average: 0.12, 0.14, 0.15 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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 --mekSat20LXiShal6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Tom, all, * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > While I'm generally not one to vote for dropping backwards-compatibility > features, I have to say that I find #4 the most attractive of these > options. It would result in getting rid of boatloads of under-tested > code, whereas #2 would really just add more, and #3 at best maintains > the status quo complexity-wise. +1. Thanks! Stephen --mekSat20LXiShal6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYrZkOAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVmD4P/33OofqvjKVY01HVYMLY08a4 IHK2ReHcY+cheA0A4D55i+oJBi4xE3lxWHFKMgUVebVzR/1DN8wyPmP0Gv9vQ3f4 zYnCCro3QVKYpT7xe+NhDVqmTuHleVrmLYyEc4ry5G/RnzreHctvb10AlLETAlPG lPJBGMLOP+yfY5/3jJOqEsOldVDT6iYqkaMH1ZNENRcu+bcmgPYPO8d4Tsx552Jl LOkW9ZcXmOgK6SJImLsma/9nZ/LhE6aoEuzdUQhlUHT8nkYqYBTylBjDHJMV09SZ 7hyqnbSvI/TXCi+GXbclAtpP7yrAc2X33RpEtQRdR66h6A6aPSFaKUK0nHEqlUQE OxBw3O5oxJGN/zpnV7WUMQwMNaPBzjH5u+6Eoz+hSmZNnJAqMHl8h1faGTgN5ye2 bn2I6BaNprdCYwHqCfJgA+MWCk50j2vMCSbZkJ4p5lry6egYc/j8m+yIZLqq5Lot E9QjNWfpgsHsbbWc3zIqlZY700sfbS0zJ+FczvuO+tJIu9+sRxm8SpnlI5st/hUo 37D0WPpMtUGNcdcSS32X26zTz2nsNyNuebDkRKuBRe7S3jjqDguKqBHvkbt1IUoX rueIQXBVME1mpFYiCGaf3S7j1P3w4TnHnh2mCQTLEg18Uf/9zRpqxqE+A4UHXgSr tuJuKXE5Myoq0cwQvgnO =GVjm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mekSat20LXiShal6--