Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ibrar Ahmed
Subject Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges?
Date
Msg-id CALtqXTcfVNbWfRKQKiEsKy-F0yQFzqwA+gHf_c6UrxVEa3YvMw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges?  (Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges?  (Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
Hi Paul,
I did some clean-up on this patch. I have also refactored a small portion of the code
to reduce the footprint of the patch. For simplicity, I have divided the patch into 6
patches, now it is easy to review and debug.

001_temporal_table_grammer_v006.patch

002_temporal_table_doc_v006.patch

003_temporal_table_backend_v006.patch

004_temporal_table_pgdump_v006.patch

005_temporal_table_regression_v006.patch

006_temporal_table_psql_v006.patch


Please follow the PostgreSQL coding guidelines. I have found places where you missed that, secondly code even in WIP stage must not have WARNING because it looks ugly.




On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 1:29 AM Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com> wrote:
The patch does not work.

postgres=# CREATE TABLE foo (id int,r int4range, valid_at tsrange, CONSTRAINT bar_pk PRIMARY KEY (r, valid_at WITHOUT OVERLAPS));
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# CREATE TABLE bar (id int,r int4range, valid_at tsrange, CONSTRAINT bar_fk FOREIGN KEY (r, PERIOD valid_at) REFERENCES foo);
ERROR:  cache lookup failed for type 0

The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author


--
Ibrar Ahmed
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimize single tuple fetch from nbtree index
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: The unused_oids script should have a reminder to use the 8000-8999 OID range