| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Range Types, discrete and/or continuous |
| Date: | 2010-10-25 18:11:00 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik6XBngSd8oHdJu4Sj6h1X-=9ULvYfcRpbYO29V@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 12:20 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> It would be very useful to be able to specify a granularity -- for
>> example timestamps with a five minute granularity would be useful
>> for scheduling appointments. In some cases the granularity might be
>> inferred -- if we have a domain defined as numeric(13,2), it would
>> be nice if the default granularity was 0.01::numeric.
>
> I don't think typmod really helps us much. It's more a property of the
> column than the type.
>
> To specify different granularities, I don't think we can avoid
> specifying new types with their own entries in pg_type.
Why?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Divakar Singh | 2010-10-25 18:12:40 | Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-25 18:09:54 | Re: ask for review of MERGE |