| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Error in exclusion constraint error message (8.5)? |
| Date: | 2010-01-02 19:23:00 |
| Message-ID: | 9848.1262460180@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> But that still seems a bit more complex than ideal. Would it be
> reasonable to have a tinterval() constructor which takes timestamptz
> data types?
No, because that would be encouraging people to use tinterval ;-).
That type needs to die.
If Jeff doesn't finish his range-type stuff soon, maybe a tinterval
replacement that hasn't got a Y2038 problem would be in order. But
we shouldn't put any more effort into tinterval as such.
(BTW, tinterval hasn't got a gist opclass either, so the constructor
is the least of the missing pieces here.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roman Kononov | 2010-01-02 19:30:45 | BUG #5257: wrong results of SUBSTRING with SQL regular expressions |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-01-02 18:37:06 | Re: Error in exclusion constraint error message (8.5)? |