Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 22:24, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> So essentially I think supporting special values like infinity boils
> down to trading away some small amount of performance -- more likely
> to be noticeable with JIT -- for some amount of possible programmer
> convenience. Some people may think that's a good trade, and other
> people may not like it. It just depends on whether the 'infinity'
> value is useful to you. If it is, you'll probably like the trade,
> because aside from the notational cost which Isaac mentioned, it's
> probably vastly faster to handle the infinity values in C code than to
> stick CASE..WHEN in to an SQL query. If it's not, you may dislike it.
> If your application code now has to know about the possibility
> 'infinity' value that it otherwise wouldn't have to worry about, you
> may dislike it for that reason also.
>
> I'm not sure there's one right answer here - my personal feeling is
> that infinite values are a wart, but I grant Isaac's point that they
> can sometimes simplify SQL coding.
>

I have no objection to the introduction of another datatype that is
stripped down for performance. I understand and agree with that need.

But the current datatypes do handle much complexity already. Blocking this
proposal would not change that, IMHO. All that is being proposed is a small
change to rationalize the existing code.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services