From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added |
Date: | 2018-12-14 21:11:43 |
Message-ID: | 25913.1544821903@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I would be interested if you have an example where the ability of
> date/timestamp values to be infinite adds special case coding.
I think Robert is talking about the implementation functions for
timestamp-related operations, which typically do have to special-case
infinite inputs. I take your point that there might be fewer special
cases in the calling SQL code, though.
> The wart I'm worried about is subtraction of infinite dates. Right now
> dates subtract to give integers; and there are no infinite integers. All
> the clever solutions to this I have right now involve making highly
> backward-incompatible changes.
As far as that goes, I'm content to say that infinity is outside the
domain of type date. If you need infinities, use timestamp.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2018-12-14 21:28:08 | Re: inconsistency and inefficiency in setup_conversion() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-14 20:59:02 | Re: ExecBuildGroupingEqual versus collations |