| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Range types |
| Date: | 2009-12-14 18:14:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1260814471.15987.398.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 09:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> In particular, the granularity examples you give seem to assume that
> the underlying datatype is exact not approximate --- which among other
> things will mean that it fails to work for float timestamps. Since
> timestamps are supposedly the main use-case, that's pretty troubling.
Additionally, granularity for timestamps is not particularly useful when
you get to things like "days" and "months" which don't have a clean
algebra.
Is the granule there only to try to support continuous ranges? If so, I
don't think it's necessary if we expose the API differences I outlined
in another email in this thread. Also, that would mean that we don't
need a granule for float, because we can already treat it as discrete*.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
*: nextafter() allows you to increment or decrement a double (loosely
speaking), and according to the man page it's part of C99 and
POSIX.1-2001.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-14 18:21:22 | Re: Range types |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-12-14 18:13:25 | Re: Hot Standby, release candidate? |