From: | "Ian Caulfield" <ian(dot)caulfield(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Warren Turkal" <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Temporal Extensions for PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2007-02-19 11:03:45 |
Message-ID: | 27bbfebe0702190303q61f5c7c6ud277b5477ac9e5ab@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/02/07, Warren Turkal <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org> wrote:
> PERIOD(INT) is actually listed in the Dr. Snodgrass's book. However, I am not
> really sure about the semantics of the type. When would you use a
> PERIOD(INT)?
It wouldn't be directly useful for temporal SQL, but I have a number
of tables in a database application where a range of integers is
mapped onto a 0-100 range (e.g. 1-5 might get mapped onto 1, 6-15 to
2, etc), which I'd like to store using a (preferably non-overlapping)
period type.
> Also, please bring this discussion back on list so that it gets recorded. I
> didn't want to post your private reply to the list without your permission.
Oops, meant to reply to the list originally.
Ian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-02-19 11:17:47 | Re: pg_proc without oid? |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-19 10:51:47 | Short varlena headers and arrays |