Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added
Date: 2018-12-15 19:48:55
Message-ID: 20181215194855.sosuz52clzqk7wmm@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-12-15 14:43:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Note that timestamp_lt etc don't actually need any special case for
> infinity, and we could hope that the infinity representation for interval
> makes it possible to likewise not special-case it in interval comparisons.
> But I think it's silly to argue that infinity handling is a significant
> fraction of something like timestamp_pl_interval or timestamp_part.

I'm inclined to agree that if done carefully the overhead here is
probably acceptable.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-12-15 20:02:37 Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-12-15 19:44:30 Re: Variable-length FunctionCallInfoData