| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Ranges for well-ordered types |
| Date: | 2006-06-11 06:22:55 |
| Message-ID: | C333BF8B-E5BF-4DC4-8B99-4F9C975455E9@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 11, 2006, at 14:45 , Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:11 +0900,
> Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>> Time (and timestamp) is a bit of a issue conceptually. The "default"
>> successor function would depend on the precision of the timestamp.
>
> And in the ideal case it doesn't exist. That is why I think a
> closed, open
> interval is a better way to go.
How would you go about converting a closed-open representation to a
closed-closed representation for display purposes? Or inserting data
that is provided in closed-closed representation?
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-06-11 09:06:57 | Re: Proposal for debugging of server-side stored procedures |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-06-11 06:13:39 | Re: Ranges for well-ordered types |