| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 7497595e-e656-11f2-d183-e03d3affed5f@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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?
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| 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 |