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: | 2010-10-26 00:38:20 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimEc1CK+zxd3v9evqbEDwK6tbOV2pR+O7WBFjvn@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 18:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh, maybe I'm confused. Are you saying you'd need multiple copies of
>> the base type, or multiple range types based on a single base type?
>
> The latter. That is, if you want a timestamp range with granularity 1
> second, and a timestamp range with granularity 1 minute, I think those
> need to have their own entries in pg_type.
OK, I agree with that. Sorry.
> The way I look at it, typmod just doesn't help at all. It's useful
> perhaps for constraining what a column can hold (like a different kind
> of CHECK constraint), or perhaps for display purposes. But typmod isn't
> really a part of the type system itself.
I view that as a problem in need of fixing, but that's another discussion.
> There may be some utility in a pseudo-type like "anyrange", but I think
> that's a separate issue.
Yeah, interesting idea.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-10-26 00:57:54 | Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-10-26 00:38:02 | Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships |