Re: [ADMIN] PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support
--- Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please tell us why integer datetimes should be enabled in our RPMs by default? We are not sure that many people need it, also it's easy for someone to add this support using the SRPMs provided. Consistent precision through the range of allowed values sceems a feature worth having. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-03/msg01038.php I wonder why you are not sure that many people need it. Regards, Murthy __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ADMIN] PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support
S Murthy Kambhampaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Consistent precision through the range of allowed values sceems a feature worth having. I wonder why you are not sure that many people need it. Because almost nobody has complained about the lack of it. (I'm talking about actual field experience of there being a problem, not somebody objecting that it sounds like a feature worth having.) It should also be pointed out that we are still finding bugs in the integer-datetimes code. This is of course exactly because it's not the default --- but I feel sure that the average user who notices a difference at all, if we change the default, will be much more likely to hit a bug than to benefit. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [ADMIN] PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support
--- Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because almost nobody has complained about the lack of it. (I'm talking about actual field experience of there being a problem, not somebody objecting that it sounds like a feature worth having.) It should also be pointed out that we are still finding bugs in the integer-datetimes code. This is of course exactly because it's not the default --- but I feel sure that the average user who notices a difference at all, if we change the default, will be much more likely to hit a bug than to benefit. It certainly did seem like a marginal improvement, but an improvment nontheless, back when we deployed 7.4 (I thing the feature was introduced in 7.3). Now that we've switched to FC3, it was a minor inconvenience to have to rebuild the RPM just for this feature, and I was wondering if there's been enough testing to make it a default. Your answer clearly is no. Allright. I wonder if the bugs you're finding are serious enough to warrant dumping the data and restoring it to a version without integer-datetimes? Thanks, Murthy __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [ADMIN] PGDG RPMS and integer-datetimes support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, S Murthy Kambhampaty wrote: Can integer datetimes support be added to the PGDG distributed RPMS for Fedora at the next version requiring an initdb. Could you please tell us why integer datetimes should be enabled in our RPMs by default? We are not sure that many people need it, also it's easy for someone to add this support using the SRPMs provided. Regards, - -- Devrim GUNDUZ devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.tdmsoft.com http://www.gunduz.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCVWEptl86P3SPfQ4RAgYHAJ937NqHHL7VUP7wH7TUnDQ6M1lC4QCg2GwW dRMyXYCBPG0tfirf53RAG1Y= =uYoW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
