Re: Ranges for well-ordered types

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Ranges for well-ordered types
Date: 2006-06-11 05:45:30
Message-ID: 20060611054530.GA26654@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:11 +0900,
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Time (and timestamp) is a bit of a issue conceptually. The "default"
> successor function would depend on the precision of the timestamp.

And in the ideal case it doesn't exist. That is why I think a closed, open
interval is a better way to go.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Glaesemann 2006-06-11 06:13:39 Re: Ranges for well-ordered types
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-06-11 03:20:15 Re: TODO: Add pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), pg_get_attrdef(),