feat: support microseconds DateTime64(6) fields via Vector sink #44
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
use rfc3339 with date_time_best_effort non-breaking... can still store into plain DateTime
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
incomplete PR as of now
Use rfc3339 with date_time_best_effort
the Vector change is non-breaking... you can still store into plain DateTime if you don't want to change the columns to DateTime64
If you want to take this feature, let me know how you want to handle the migration part ( updating
timecolumns to DateTime64(6) ) and I can help implement; i.e., single migration as 0014? The tricky part is that you have to duplicate, insert from old to new, and drop the old tables to modify a column used as a key (timebeing the main ordering key in the tables).I've done that on an installation with 1.2B rows in _tracking but it's not a straightforward operation.
Re: #42