> On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:07 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2017-07-17 12:54:31 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote: >> These types provide a 4-byte datatype for storing real-world second >> precision timestamps, as occur in many log files. > > These seem to be getting less common IME, most products have higher > resolution these days. If this were nicely written, maintainable, and > documented code my position would differ, but it really isn't. > > >> That said, I am fully aware that these are deprecated and expect you >> will remove them, at which time I'll have to keep them in my tree >> and politely refuse to merge in your change which removes them. > > It'd be way less work to package abstime as an extension if you want to > do so.
After proposing to submit a patch for the secondstamp datatype (which I mentioned upthread), Robert objected to the idea of data on disk changing meaning, which was a part of the idea that Tom seemed to be willing to accept. Since I couldn't get both Tom and Robert on board with any particular design, I silently withdrew from the development of any such patch. This has happened on several proposals I have made on this list over the years. Unless there is fairly unanimous support from the committers, I don't bother following through with a proposal, given the improbability of it getting accepted. I would happily finish and submit that prior proposal if there were general agreement that it is a good design. I have no interest in making abstime into an extension, however. mark
