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

From Surafel Temesgen
Subject Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table
Date
Msg-id CALAY4q9u4r_J-=v_MXJTpEx6WA=YhT3A3n9sw6P2XxK0rWk5bg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table  (Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table  (Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

hi Vik,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:02 PM Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
 

If we're going to be implicitly adding stuff to the PK, we also need to
add that stuff to the other unique constraints, no?  And I think it
would be better to add both the start and the end column to these keys. 
Most of the temporal queries will be accessing both.

 
yes it have to be added to other constraint too but adding both system time 
to PK will violate constraint because it allow multiple data in current data 
 

Why aren't you following the standard syntax here?



because we do have TIME and SYSTEM_P as a key word and am not sure of whether
its a right thing to add other keyword that contain those two word concatenated 
 
> Any enlightenment?
>

There are quite a lot of typos and other things that aren't written "the
Postgres way". But before I comment on any of that, I'd like to see the
features be implemented correctly according to the SQL standard.

it is almost in sql standard syntax except the above small difference. i can correct it 
and post more complete patch soon. 

regards 
Surafel  

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: dropdb --force
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control