Thread: +infinity for dates and timestamps
It has always annoyed me that we can't write '+infinity' for dates and timestamps and get the OCD satisfaction of making our queries line up with '-infinity'. I wrote a fix for that some time ago but apparently never posted it. I was reminded of it by jian he in the Infinite Interval thread, and so here it is. -- Vik Fearing
Attachment
On 1/1/23 03:10, Vik Fearing wrote: > It has always annoyed me that we can't write '+infinity' for dates and > timestamps and get the OCD satisfaction of making our queries line up > with '-infinity'. > > I wrote a fix for that some time ago but apparently never posted it. I > was reminded of it by jian he in the Infinite Interval thread, and so > here it is. Hmm. Somehow the .out test files were not included. Fixed with attached. -- Vik Fearing
Attachment
Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes: > It has always annoyed me that we can't write '+infinity' for dates and > timestamps and get the OCD satisfaction of making our queries line up > with '-infinity'. +1, since it works for numerics it should work for these types too. (I didn't read the patch though.) regards, tom lane
Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes: > Hmm. Somehow the .out test files were not included. > Fixed with attached. Somehow you'd managed to duplicate some of the other changes, so the cfbot still didn't like that :-( Anyway, pushed with cosmetic changes. Notably, I left out the documentation changes after observing that we don't document "+infinity" separately for the numeric types. Given the lack of complaints about that I think it's fine to do the same here. regards, tom lane
On 1/1/23 20:21, Tom Lane wrote: > Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes: >> Hmm. Somehow the .out test files were not included. >> Fixed with attached. > > Somehow you'd managed to duplicate some of the other changes, > so the cfbot still didn't like that :-( > > Anyway, pushed with cosmetic changes. Notably, I left out the > documentation changes after observing that we don't document > "+infinity" separately for the numeric types. Given the lack of > complaints about that I think it's fine to do the same here. Thanks, Tom! No objections to your changes. -- Vik Fearing