Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Surafel Temesgen
Subject Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table
Date
Msg-id CALAY4q95Dhnt3zmKBdibjbv6cR=W185CyY8uFTjT+X4PA1gAbw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:38 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.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 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dian M Fay"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum_cost_page_miss default value and modern hardware