Re: SQL:2011 application time

From: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: 2023-07-15 09:04:07
Message-ID: CACJufxFE6VM-GDnDyFGLocfTOGpaPOzEVVkTMRcNm6Kaa1mv8g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 9:04 AM Paul A Jungwirth
<pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 1:13 AM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I had talked to Paul about this offline a while ago. btree_gist to core
> > is no longer considered a prerequisite. But Paul was planning to
> > produce a new patch set that is arranged and sequenced a bit
> > differently. Apparently, that new version is not done yet, so it would
> > make sense to either close this entry as returned with feedback, or move
> > it to the next commit fest as waiting on author.
>
> Here are some new patch files based on discussions from PGCon. The
> patches are reorganized a bit to hopefully make them easier to review:
>
> Initially I implement all functionality on just range columns, without
> supporting PERIODs yet. There are patches for temporal PRIMARY
> KEY/UNIQUE constraints, for simple foreign keys (without CASCADE/SET
> NULL/SET DEFAULT), for UPDATE/DELETE FOR PORTION OF, and then for the
> rest of the FK support (which depends on FOR PORTION OF). If you
> compare these patches to the v11 ones, you'll see that a ton of
> clutter disappears by not supporting PERIODs as a separate "thing".
>
> Finally there is a patch adding PERIOD syntax, but with a new
> implementation where a PERIOD causes us to just define a GENERATED
> range column. That means we can support all the same things as before
> but without adding the clutter. This patch isn't quite working yet
> (especially ALTER TABLE), but I thought I'd send where I'm at so far,
> since it sounds like folks are interested in doing a review. Also it
> was a little tricky dealing with the dependency between the PERIOD and
> the GENERATED column. (See the comments in the patch.) If anyone has a
> suggestion there I'd be happy to hear it.
>
> My goal is to include another patch soon to support hidden columns, so
> that the period's GENERATED column can be hidden. I read the
> conversation about a recent patch attempt for something similar, and I
> think I can use most of that (but cut some of the things the community
> was worried about).
>
> All these patches need some polishing, but I think there is enough new
> here for them to be worth reading for anyone interested in temporal
> progress.
>
> I'll set this commitfest entry back to Needs Review. Thanks for taking a look!
>
> Paul

due to change in:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ec8b1d9b-502e-d1f8-e909-1bf9dffe6fa5(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com

git apply $DOWNLOADS/patches/v12-0001-Add-temporal-PRIMARY-KEY-and-UNIQUE-constraints.patch
error: patch failed: src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c:940
error: src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c: patch does not apply

probably need some adjustment.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2023-07-15 11:18:14 Re: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-07-15 07:27:39 Re: logicalrep_message_type throws an error