Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table

On 24/10/2019 16:54, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
>
> hi Vik,
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:02 PM Vik Fearing
> <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <mailto:vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:
>  
>
>
> If we're going to be implicitly adding stuff to the PK, we also
> need to
> add that stuff to the other unique constraints, no?  And I think it
> would be better to add both the start and the end column to these
> keys. 
> Most of the temporal queries will be accessing both.
>
>  
> yes it have to be added to other constraint too but adding both system
> time 
> to PK will violate constraint because it allow multiple data in
> current data

I don't understand what you mean by this.

>  
>
>
> Why aren't you following the standard syntax here?
>
>
>
> because we do have TIME and SYSTEM_P as a key word and am not sure of
> whether
> its a right thing to add other keyword that contain those two word
> concatenated

Yes, we have to do that.

>  
>  
>
> > Any enlightenment?
> >
>
> There are quite a lot of typos and other things that aren't
> written "the
> Postgres way". But before I comment on any of that, I'd like to
> see the
> features be implemented correctly according to the SQL standard.
>
>
> it is almost in sql standard syntax except the above small difference.
> i can correct it 
> and post more complete patch soon.

I don't mean just the SQL syntax, I also mean the behavior.