On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 19:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > because RH really can't be used as a production PostgreSQL server (if > > date based data is important) > > I have open bugs about the lack of in-place upgrade. I have never once > heard a customer complain about FP timestamps. So your position is > nonsense. Most customers wouldn't even understand the problem. We have systems we have to custom maintain due to PostgreSQL having ghost data because of the floating point based timestamp storage. The problem is very simple. If you run on RH by default you have an opportunity for data that will disappear in a practical sense. You know this is true. My response is not nonsense. The data is still there but it is floating point based and thus, inexact. The where clause that you expect to retrieve the data, may not. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
