From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
Date: | 2024-05-21 17:57:27 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob518sSV4Y8F4LN3X-7+7DmExznG1wCbYrOurfPL_xBOg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 7:22 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> An empty range does not "bypass" the an exclusion constraint. The
> exclusion constraint has a documented meaning and it's enforced.
>
> Of course there are situations where an empty range doesn't make a lot
> of sense. For many domains zero doesn't make any sense, either.
> Consider receiving an email saying "thank you for purchasing 0
> widgets!". Check constraints seem like a reasonable way to prevent
> those kinds of problems.
I think that's true. Having infinitely many events zero-length events
scheduled at the same point in time isn't necessarily a problem: I can
attend an infinite number of simultaneous meetings if I only need to
attend them for exactly zero time.
What I think is less clear is what that means for temporal primary
keys. As Paul pointed out upthread, in every other case, a temporal
primary key is at least as unique as a regular primary key, but in
this case, it isn't. And someone might reasonably think that a
temporal primary key should exclude empty ranges just as all primary
keys exclude nulls. Or they might think the opposite.
At least, so it seems to me.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-05-21 18:23:52 | Re: libpq compression (part 3) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-21 17:50:58 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |