Re: SQL:2011 application time

On 9/7/23 18:24, jian he wrote:
> for a range primary key, is it fine to expect it to be unique, not
> null and also not overlap? (i am not sure how hard to implement it).
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> quote from 7IWD2-02-Foundation-2011-12.pdf. 4.18.3.2 Unique
> constraints, page 97 of 1483.
>
> ...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> based on the above, the unique constraint does not specify that the
> column list must be range type. UNIQUE (a, c WITHOUT OVERLAPS).
> Here column "a" can be a range type (that have overlap property) and
> can be not.
> In fact, many of your primary key, foreign key regess test using
> something like '[11,11]' (which make it more easy to understand),
> which in logic is a non-range usage.
> So UNIQUE (a, c WITHOUT OVERLAPS), column "a" be a non-range data type
> does make sense?

I'm not sure I understand this question, but here are a few things that
might help clarify things:

In SQL:2011, a temporal primary key, unique constraint, or foreign key
may have one or more "scalar" parts (just like a regular key) followed
by one "PERIOD" part, which is denoted with "WITHOUT OVERLAPS" (in
PKs/UNIQUEs) or "PERIOD" (in FKs). Except for this last key part,
everything is still compared for equality, just as in a traditional key.
But this last part is compared for overlaps. It's exactly the same as
`EXCLUDE (id WITH =, valid_at WITH &&)`. The overlap part must come last
and you can have only one (but you may have more than one scalar part if
you like).

In the patch, I have followed that pattern, except I also allow a
regular range column anywhere I allow a PERIOD. In fact PERIODs are
mostly implemented on top of range types. (Until recently PERIOD support
was in the first patch, not the last, and there was code all throughout
for handling both, e.g. within indexes, etc. But at pgcon Peter
suggested building everything on just range columns, and then having
PERIODs create an "internal" GENERATED column, and that cleaned up the
code considerably.)

One possible source of confusion is that in the tests I'm using range
columns *also* for the scalar key part. So valid_at is a tsrange, and
int is an int4range. This is not normally how you'd use the feature, but
you need the btree_gist extension to mix int & tsrange (e.g.), and
that's not available in the regress tests. We are still comparing the
int4range for regular equality and the tsrange for overlaps. If you
search this thread there was some discussion about bringing btree_gist
into core, but it sounds like it doesn't need to happen. (It might be
still desirable independently. EXCLUDE constraints are also not really
something you can use practically without it, and their tests use the
same trick of comparing ranges for plain equality.)

The piece of discussion you're replying to is about allowing *multiple*
WITHOUT OVERLAPS modifiers on a PK/UNIQUE constraint, and in any
position. I think that's a good idea, so I've started adapting the code
to support it. (In fact there is a lot of code that assumes the overlaps
key part will be in the last position, and I've never really been happy
with that, so it's an excuse to make that more robust.) Here I'm saying
(1) you will still need at least one scalar key part, (2) if there are
no WITHOUT OVERLAPS parts then you just have a regular key, not a
temporal one, (3) changing this obliges us to do the same for foreign
keys and FOR PORTION OF.

I hope that helps! I apologize if I've completely missed the point. If
so please try again. :-)

Yours,

--
Paul ~{:-)
pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com