Re: More tzdb fun: POSIXRULES is being deprecated upstream

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-06-17 20:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I would definitely be in favor of "nuke it now" with respect to HEAD.
>> It's a bit more debatable for the back branches.  However, all branches
>> are going to be equally exposed to updated system tzdata trees, so
>> we've typically felt that changes in the tz-related code should be
>> back-patched.

> It seems sensible to me to remove it in master and possibly 
> REL_13_STABLE, but leave it alone in the back branches.

For purposes of discussion, here's a patch that rips out posixrules
support altogether.  (Note that further code simplifications could
be made --- the "load_ok" variable is vestigial, for instance.  This
formulation is intended to minimize the diffs from upstream.)

A less aggressive idea would be to leave the code alone and just change
the makefiles to not install a posixrules file in our own builds.
That'd leave the door open for somebody who really needed posixrules
behavior to get it back by just creating a posixrules file.  I'm not
sure this idea has much else to recommend it though.

I'm honestly not sure what I think we should do exactly.
The main arguments in favor of the full-rip-out option seem to be

(1) It'd ensure consistent behavior of POSIX zone specs across
platforms, whether or not --with-system-tzdata is used and whether
or not the platform supplies a posixrules file.

(2) We'll presumably be forced into the no-posixrules behavior at
some point, so forcing the issue lets us dictate the timing rather
than having it be dictated to us.  If nothing else, that means we
can release-note the behavioral change in a timely fashion.

Point (2) seems like an argument for doing it only in master
(possibly plus v13), but on the other hand I'm not convinced about
how much control we really have if we wait.  What seems likely
to happen is that posixrules files will disappear from platform
tz databases over some hard-to-predict timespan.  Even if no
major platforms drop them immediately at the next IANA update,
it seems quite likely that some/many will do so within the remaining
support lifetime of v12.  So even if we continue to support the feature,
it's likely to vanish in practice at some uncertain point.

Given that the issue only affects people using nonstandard TimeZone
settings, it may be that we shouldn't agonize over it too much
either way.

Anyway, as I write this I'm kind of talking myself into the position
that we should indeed back-patch this.  The apparent stability
benefits of not doing so may be illusory, and if we back-patch then
at least we get to document that there's a change.  But an argument
could be made in the other direction too.

Thoughts?

			regards, tom lane