From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Rémi Lapeyre <remi(dot)lapeyre(at)lenstra(dot)fr>, Eli Marmor <eli(at)netmask(dot)it>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table |
Date: | 2021-01-08 12:33:59 |
Message-ID: | CANbhV-Fb35HMoySGMFfcxN_3i45Bb6cZODOcz8S7+Nys3Y2raA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:34 AM Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:13 AM Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I've minimally rebased the patch to current head so that it compiles
> > and passes current make check.
>
> Full version attached
New version attached with improved error messages, some additional
docs and a review of tests.
* UPDATE doesn't set EndTime correctly, so err... the patch doesn't
work on this aspect.
Everything else does actually work, AFAICS, so we "just" need a way to
update the END_TIME column in place...
So input from other Hackers/Committers needed on this point to see
what is acceptable.
* Anomalies around use of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are not discussed or resolved
* No discussion, comments or tests around freezing and whether that
causes issues here
* What happens if you ask for a future time?
It will give an inconsistent result as it scans, so we should refuse a
query for time > current_timestamp.
* ALTER TABLE needs some work, it's a bit klugey at the moment and
needs extra tests.
Should refuse DROP COLUMN on a system time column
* Do StartTime and EndTime show in SELECT *? Currently, yes. Would
guess we wouldn't want them to, not sure what standard says.
* The syntax changes in gram.y probably need some coralling
Overall, it's a pretty good patch and worth working on more. I will
consider a recommendation on what to do with this.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
system-versioned-temporal-table_2021_v10.patch | application/octet-stream | 125.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiro Ikeda | 2021-01-08 12:44:59 | Re: Add session statistics to pg_stat_database |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-01-08 12:21:53 | Re: Global snapshots |