| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "PATTERSON,JEFF (A-Sonoma,ex1)" <jeff_patterson(at)agilent(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FWD: overlaps() bug? |
| Date: | 2002-02-16 03:22:02 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0202152212530.681-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart writes:
> Extra pairs of eyes are helpful here; can anyone see that TIME is
> excluded from the types defined for OVERLAPS (which would free us to Do
> It Our Way) or if the spec calls for an implementation different from
> the part of the spec I found (which might be The Right Way)?
No, the current implementation is correct.
The drawback with redefining the time data type to be a circular number
line is that it leads to definitional problems in other areas of the
arithmetic. For example, what would the result of
time '3:00' - time '23:00'
have to be?
A wrapping time type would probably be useful, but not when it shadows the
standard type.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-02-16 03:44:12 | 7.2 and current timestamp bug? |
| Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2002-02-16 03:16:40 | Re: Ready to branch 7.2/7.3 ? |