| From: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(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: | 2021-01-14 17:03:16 |
| Message-ID: | CALAY4q95Dhnt3zmKBdibjbv6cR=W185CyY8uFTjT+X4PA1gAbw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:38 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
Querying a table without system versioning with a value of non existent
data returns no record rather than error out or have other behavior. i
don't
understand the needs for special treatment here
regards
Surafel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-01-14 17:29:28 | Re: vacuum_cost_page_miss default value and modern hardware |
| Previous Message | Dian M Fay | 2021-01-14 17:02:42 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |