On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I'd definitely be on board with just dropping the type altogether despite >>> Mark's concern. > >> Then I vote for that option. > > BTW, another possible compromise is to move abstime into a contrib > module; we've always accepted that contrib modules can be held to a > lower standard than core features. I'm not volunteering to do the > work for that, but it's worth contemplating.
I would be OK with that, provided the documentation calls out the hazard. > Alternatively, we could turn the origin point for abstime into > pg_control field, and regard changing it as a reason for a database > not being pg_upgrade'able unless it lacks any abstime columns. I would be OK with that, too, but is there any danger that we're going to grow pg_control to a size where reads and writes can no longer be assumed atomic, if we keep adding things? -- 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
