| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
| Date: | 2024-03-24 07:38:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1edb3b79-a4bc-43b1-80aa-2e090472fe32@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23.03.24 18:42, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> Now this is a long chain of reasoning to say rangetypes are safe. I
> added a comment. Note it doesn't apply to arbitrary types, so if we
> support those eventually we should just require a recheck always, or
> alternately use equals, not containedby. (That would require storing
> equals somewhere. It could go in ffeqop, but that feels like a footgun
> since pfeqop and ppeqop need overlaps.)
Ok, this explanation is good enough for now. I have committed the
patches v33-0001-Add-temporal-FOREIGN-KEYs.patch and
v33-0002-Support-multiranges-in-temporal-FKs.patch (together).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2024-03-24 09:35:44 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-03-24 05:10:19 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |