Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges?
| От | Isaac Morland |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsGm5f61Xn9N-ENOEncOpYQYP9DyCKtLGxdBo8MiVjWxVB3kQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? (Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 at 14:18, Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote:
Also, just how strictly do we have to follow the standard? Requiring
sentinels like '01 JAN 3000` just seems so silly. Could Postgres
permit nullable start/end PERIOD columns, and give them the same
meaning as ranges (unbounded)? Even if I forgot about ranges
altogether, I'd sure love to avoid these sentinels.
We have "infinity" and "-infinity" values in our date and timestamp types:
I think this avoids the silliness with sentinel values.
For myself, I don't care about PERIOD etc. one bit. The "every new capability gets its own syntax" model that SQL follows is very old-fashioned, and for good reason. I'm happy with ranges and exclusion constraints. But if we can provide an implementation of PERIOD that makes it easier to port applications written for legacy database systems, it might be worthwhile.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: