Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

From: Peter Moser <pitiz29a(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types
Date: 2018-01-26 06:58:04
Message-ID: CAHO0eLbP=_XfRHNsUJ_6OB5fckEJgc21VLFyhm2jw6v85gAgTw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I also don't agree with the idea that we should reject syntax that
> doesn't appear in the SQL standard. We have a great deal of such
> syntax already, and we add more of it in every release, and a good
> deal of it is contributed by you and your colleagues. I don't see
> why this patch should be held to a stricter standard than we do in
> general. I agree that there is some possibility for pain if the SQL
> standards committee adopts syntax that is similar to whatever we pick
> but different in detail, but I don't think we should be too worried
> about that unless other database systems, such as Oracle, have syntax
> that is similar to what is proposed here but different in
> detail. The
> SQL standards committee seems to like standardizing on whatever
> companies with a lot of money have already implemented; it's unlikely
> that they are going to adopt something totally different from any
> existing system but inconveniently similar to ours.

We agree with you.

Best regards,
Anton, Johann, Michael, Peter

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2018-01-26 07:06:14 Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Previous Message Peter Moser 2018-01-26 06:57:25 Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types