On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Doesn't this plan amount to breaking pg_upgrade compatibility and >> hoping that nobody notice? > > Well, what we'd need to do is document that the type is only meant to be > used to store dates within say +/- 30 years from current time. As long > as people adhere to that use-case, the proposal would work conveniently > long into the future ...
Typically, when you try to store an out-of-range value in PostgreSQL, you get an ERROR, and that's one of the selling points of PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL users regularly beat up other projects for, say, allowing 0000-00-00 to be considered a valid date, or any similar perceived laxity in enforcing data consistency. I don't like the idea that we can just deviate from that principle whenever adhering to it is too much work. > I'd definitely be on board with just dropping the type altogether despite > Mark's concern. Then I vote for that option. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
