| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster |
| Date: | 2017-02-22 13:58:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20170222135838.GL9812@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, all,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2017-02-22 13:59:33 | Re: Hash support for grouping sets |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-22 13:56:34 | Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster |