Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Rémi Lapeyre <remi(dot)lapeyre(at)lenstra(dot)fr>, Eli Marmor <eli(at)netmask(dot)it>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table
Date: 2021-01-08 13:38:42
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/8/21 7:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> * What happens if you ask for a future time?
> It will give an inconsistent result as it scans, so we should refuse a
> query for time > current_timestamp.

That seems like a significant limitation. Can we fix it instead of
refusing the query?



Andrew Dunstan

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2021-01-08 14:46:58 Re: data_checksums enabled by default (was: Move --data-checksums to common options in initdb --help)
Previous Message Matthias van de Meent 2021-01-08 13:30:22 Re: [PATCH] Simple progress reporting for COPY command