Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster

Hi,

I know I'm 7 months late to this, but only just read the beta 4 release notes.

Is there anything people using float datetimes can do that isn't a
pg_dumpall | pg_restore to do a less painful update?

We have several TB of data still using float datetimes and I'm trying
to figure out how we can move to 10 (currently on 9.6.x) without
massive amounts of $ in duplicated hardware or downtime.

I did attempt a pg_dumpall | pg_restore at one point but for whatever
reason we had data in tables that integer datetimes fails on (I forget
the exact crash, but the datetime values were either too small or too
large to fit into the integer datetimes field -- I can retry this if
it would be helpful).

Thanks.

Regards,
Omar

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-02-27 17:00:23 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On 02/22/2017 02:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> > > On 2017-02-22 08:43:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > > > (To be concrete, I'm suggesting dropping --disable-integer-datetimes
>> > > > in HEAD, and just agreeing that in the back branches, use of replication
>> > > > protocol with float-timestamp servers is not supported and we're not
>> > > > going to bother looking for related bugs there.  Given the lack of field
>> > > > complaints, I do not believe anyone cares.)
>> >
>> > What I *am* willing to spend time on is removing float-timestamp code
>> > in HEAD.  I've not yet heard anybody speak against doing that (or at
>> > least, nothing I interpreted as a vote against it).  If I've not heard
>> > any complaints by tomorrow, I'll get started on that.
>>
>> Rip it out!
>
> Already happened: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=b6aa17e0ae367afdcea07118e016111af4fa6bc3
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers