Re: [HACKERS] Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster

On 2017-02-19 10:49:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Thoughts?  Should we double down on trying to make this work according
> >> to the "all integer timestamps" protocol specs, or cut our losses and
> >> change the specs?
> 
> > I vote for doubling down.  It's bad enough that we have so many
> > internal details that depend on this setting; letting that cascade
> > into the wire protocol seems like it's just letting the chaos spread
> > farther and wider.
> 
> How do you figure that it's not embedded in the wire protocol already?
> Not only the replicated data for a timestamp column, but also the
> client-visible binary I/O format, depend on this.  I think having some
> parts of the protocol use a different timestamp format than other parts
> is simply weird, and as this exercise has shown, it's bug-prone as all
> get out.

I don't think it's that closely tied together atm. Things like
pg_basebackup, pg_receivexlog etc should work, without having to match
timestamp storage.  Logical replication, unless your output plugin dumps
data in binary / "raw" output, also works just fine across the timestamp
divide.

It doesn't sound that hard to add a SystemToIntTimestamp() function,
given it only needs to do something if float timestamps are enabled?

Regards,

Andres