From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vlad Arkhipov <arhipov(at)dc(dot)baikal(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Miroslav Šimulčík <simulcik(dot)miro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: temporal support patch |
Date: | 2012-06-18 17:09:06 |
Message-ID: | 1340039346.19023.13.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 19:34 +0900, Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
> What's wrong with SPI/timetravel extension for system versioning?
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/contrib-spi.html
>
> We are heavily using system-versioned and application-time period
> tables in our enterprise products (most of them are bi-temporal).
> However our implementation is based on triggers and views and
> therefore is not very convenient to use. There are also some locking
> issues with foreign keys to application-time period tables. It will be
> great if the new temporal SQL features will be included in the
> Postgresql core with SQL 2011 syntax support. It is especially
> important for bi-temporal tables because of complex internal logic of
> UPDATE/DELETE and huge SELECT queries for such tables.
I've already pointed out some missing features in this thread, but the
big ones in my mind are:
1. It doesn't use 9.2 Range Types, which would help in a lot of ways
(like making the SELECT queries a lot simpler and faster).
2. It's missing a lot of options, like storing the user that modified a
row or the changed columns.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2012-06-18 17:42:34 | Re: libpq compression |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-18 16:43:29 | Re: Allow WAL information to recover corrupted pg_controldata |