Re: Fwd: Re: [CORE] temporal tables (SQL2011)

From: Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Stefan Scheid <ssc(at)4braincells(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [CORE] temporal tables (SQL2011)
Date: 2016-11-10 00:26:37
Message-ID: CAMsr+YFXb7-AaLTQq32HqVPvEXiTKUjQpguk9Jr+Q_JqxTcuUw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8 Nov. 2016 15:11, "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7 November 2016 at 05:08, Stefan Scheid <ssc(at)4braincells(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> are there plans to introduce temporal tables?
>
> I don't know of anybody working on them, but someone else may. Try
searching the list archives.

I should've mentioned that one of the reasons it doesn't seem to be that
high on many people's priority lists is that it's fairly easy to implement
with triggers and updatable views. There's a greater performance cost than
I'd expect to pay for the same thing done as a built-in feature, but it
works well enough.

Many ORMs and application frameworks also offer similar capabilities at the
application level.

So I think temporal tables are one of those nice-to-haves that so far
people just find other ways of doing.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2016-11-10 00:41:40 Re: Add support for SRF and returning composites to pl/tcl
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-11-10 00:21:37 Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews?