From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Range Types, discrete and/or continuous |
Date: | 2010-10-25 18:44:18 |
Message-ID: | 1288032258.8645.47.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 14:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 12:20 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> It would be very useful to be able to specify a granularity -- for
> >> example timestamps with a five minute granularity would be useful
> >> for scheduling appointments. In some cases the granularity might be
> >> inferred -- if we have a domain defined as numeric(13,2), it would
> >> be nice if the default granularity was 0.01::numeric.
> >
> > I don't think typmod really helps us much. It's more a property of the
> > column than the type.
> >
> > To specify different granularities, I don't think we can avoid
> > specifying new types with their own entries in pg_type.
>
> Why?
Because typmod doesn't survive through a function call. Even if it did,
I don't think typmod has a real answer for type promotion, implicit
casting etc.
If we lose the typmod (and therefore the granularity), then a function
like "adjacent" is difficult to answer if we use a closed-closed
canonical representation (as you suggested); and if we use a closed-open
representation then it's difficult to answer a question like whether a
range contains a specific timestamp.
Can I turn the question around and ask how you intend to make it work
without new entries in pg_type?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Singer | 2010-10-25 18:46:46 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
Previous Message | Divakar Singh | 2010-10-25 18:42:48 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |