| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Eric McKeeth <eldin00(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Exclusion constraint issue |
| Date: | 2010-09-28 22:07:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1285711620.19812.7.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 12:18 -0600, Eric McKeeth wrote:
> This is ugly, but it does seem to enforce the constraint I need, of
> non-overlapping dates where sharing an endpoint is not considered an
> overlap.
The period type supports different inclusivity/exclusivity combinations.
So, the period:
'[2009-01-02, 2009-01-03)'
Does not overlap with:
'[2009-01-03, 2009-01-04)'
Because "[" or "]" means "inclusive" and "(" or ")" means "exclusive".
For further discussion, you can join the temporal-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org
mailing list (sign up at
http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/temporal-general ). If this still
does not solve your use case, I'd like to see if it can be modified to
do so.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bartlomiej Korupczynski | 2010-09-28 22:16:28 | Re: UPDATE/DELETE with ORDER BY and LIMIT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-28 21:51:57 | Re: Behavior of parameter holders in query containing a '$1' |