From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? |
Date: | 2018-10-21 19:10:55 |
Message-ID: | a2db3850-2418-904f-adc5-d99037728a7c@iki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21/10/2018 21:17, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> 3. Build our own abstractions on top of ranges, and then use those to
> implement PERIOD-based features. This is the least clear option, and I
> imagine it would require a lot more design effort. Our range types are
> already a step in this direction. Does anyone think this approach has
> promise? If so I can start thinking about how we'd do it. I imagine we
> could use a lot of the ideas in [7].
> ...
> [7] C. J. Date, Hugh Darwen, Nikos Lorentzos. Time and Relational
> Theory, Second Edition: Temporal Databases in the Relational Model and
> SQL. 2nd edition, 2014.
+1 on this approach. I think [7] got the model right. If we can
implement SQL-standard PERIODs on top of it, then that's a bonus, but
having sane, flexible, coherent set of range operators is more important
to me.
What are we missing? It's been years since I read that book, but IIRC
temporal joins is one thing, at least. What features do you have in mind?
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul A Jungwirth | 2018-10-21 19:46:58 | Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? |
Previous Message | Isaac Morland | 2018-10-21 18:56:08 | Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? |