Re: Ranges for well-ordered types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Glaesemann
Subject Re: Ranges for well-ordered types
Date
Msg-id C333BF8B-E5BF-4DC4-8B99-4F9C975455E9@seespotcode.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ranges for well-ordered types  (Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>)
Responses Re: Ranges for well-ordered types  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jun 11, 2006, at 14:45 , Bruno Wolff III wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:11 +0900,
>   Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net> wrote:
>>
>> Time (and timestamp) is a bit of a issue conceptually. The "default"
>> successor function would depend on the precision of the timestamp.
>
> And in the ideal case it doesn't exist. That is why I think a  
> closed, open
> interval is a better way to go.

How would you go about converting a closed-open representation to a  
closed-closed representation for display purposes? Or inserting data  
that is provided in closed-closed representation?

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Glaesemann
Date:
Subject: Re: Ranges for well-ordered types
Next
From: Thomas Hallgren
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for debugging of server-side stored procedures