| From: | Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Date: | 2016-11-01 18:11:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+bJJbx9prrPHDSnOveqcJUfM748ohG=rjJY_Qri70Fg9dQ_tQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In the end, keywords are not the defining issue here; the issue is
> whether all of this complexity around inclusive and exclusive bounds
> carries its weight, and whether we want to be committed to that.
>
> Any other opinions out there?
If it where for me I would opt for just half-open intervals. The only
problem I've ever had with them is when working with FINITE ranges,
i.e., there is no way of expresing the range of 8 bits integer with
half open intervals of 8 bit integers, but I would happily pay that
cost for the benefits of not having people unintentionally make
non-contiguous date/timestamp intervals, which I periodically suffer.
Francisco Olarte.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2016-11-01 18:11:16 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-01 18:10:33 | Re: Using a latch between a background worker process and a thread |