| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: temporal extension "period" data type |
| Date: | 2008-05-26 18:10:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1211825403.8025.12.camel@huvostro |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 10:59 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 06:49 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > * temporal foreign keys
> > > * temporal joins
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I'm being dense, but how does inclusion in core help you do these
> > things? Or, more precisely, how does non-inclusion in core prevent them.
>
> Temporal FK's can be implemented with triggers, but can't be
> implemented with the current FK syntax and mechanism. Any extensions to
> the FK syntax to support this would need to be done in postgres.
>
> Temporal joins can be implemented by joining with the "overlaps"
> operator and selecting the intersection of the two period columns.
> Anything added would be syntactic sugar.
Either overlaps or contains seem valid join operators
Will there be UNIQUE (non-overlapping) indexes for period ?
--------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-05-26 18:11:30 | Re: Proposal: temporal extension "period" data type |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-05-26 18:06:38 | Re: Read Uncommitted |