Re: DOMAIN/composite TYPE vs. base TYPE - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Joe Abbate
Subject Re: DOMAIN/composite TYPE vs. base TYPE
Date
Msg-id 3032f56a-3a5c-682b-512e-af6e8cb363d1@freedomcircle.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: DOMAIN/composite TYPE vs. base TYPE  (Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: DOMAIN/composite TYPE vs. base TYPE  (Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>)
Re: DOMAIN/composite TYPE vs. base TYPE  ("Gavan Schneider" <list.pg.gavan@pendari.org>)
List pgsql-general
Hello Rob,

On 28/9/20 17:17, Rob Sargent wrote:
> just record all three fields (day, month, year) with nulls and do the to-date as needed.

That is not sufficient.  An earlier implementation had something like a 
CHAR(8) to record YYYYMMDD, but how can you indicate, for example, an 
issue date of a bimonthly magazine, say July-Aug 2020?  We can store 
2020-07-01 in the DATE attribute, but we need another attribute to 
indicate it's really two months.  Also, by storing three separate 
columns, you loose the beauty of the PG DATE abstraction.

Joe





pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: DOMAIN/composite TYPE vs. base TYPE
Next
From: Ron
Date:
Subject: Re: DOMAIN/composite TYPE vs. base TYPE