Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
От | Yeb Havinga |
---|---|
Тема | Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4BBF15B2.8070805@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | extended operator classes vs. type interfaces (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote: > Under the first type [4pm,5pm) = > [4pm,4:59:59pm], while under the second [4pm,5pm) = [4pm,4:59pm]. > > Thoughts? > The examples with units look a lot like the IVL<PQ> datatype from HL7, see http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot/html/infrastructure/datatypes_r2/datatypes_r2.htm About a type interface, the HL7 spec talks about promotion from e.g. a timestamp to an interval (hl7 speak for range) of timestamps (a range), and demotion for the back direction. Every 'quantity type', which is any type with a (possibly partially) lineair ordered domain, can be promoted to an interval of that type. In PostgreSQL terms, this could perhaps mean that by 'tagging' a datatype as a lineair order, it could automatically have a range type defined on it, like done for the array types currently. regards, Yeb Havinga
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: