public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <[email protected]>
To: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:02:45 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+renyXHFFyq1n2+4cwcFoLXqzUhb6u6WCL6wjk8ZjP9WxTExw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxHVg65raNhG2zBwXgjrD6jqace4NZbePyMhP8-_Q=iT8w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxFFeUHoBomd2856amDBccNVQZzA=Jrk1_FDdvSZ1+X7og@mail.gmail.com>
<CACJufxEACgLY7YUvzo8j=iOB-z6-1QHAvMr8cUHRP7b_F_vo3A@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+renyXHFFyq1n2+4cwcFoLXqzUhb6u6WCL6wjk8ZjP9WxTExw@mail.gmail.com>
On 16.03.24 22:37, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> Here is a new patch series addressing the last few feedback emails
> from Peter & Jian He. It mostly focuses on the FKs patch, trying to
> get it really ready to commit,
I have committed the test changes (range and date format etc.).
The FOREIGN KEY patch looks okay to me now. Maybe check if any of the
subsequent comments from jian should be applied.
>> > I'm not sure how else to do it. The issue is that `range_agg` returns
>> > a multirange, so the result
>> > type doesn't match the inputs. But other types will likely have the
>> > same problem: to combine boxes
>> > you may need a multibox. The combine mdranges you may need a
>> > multimdrange.
>>
>> Can we just hardcode the use of range_agg for this release? Might be
>> easier. I don't see all this generality being useful in the near future.
>
> Okay, I've hard-coded range_agg in the main patch and separated the
> support for multirange/etc in the next two patches. But there isn't
> much code there (mostly tests and docs). Since we can't hard-code the
> *operators*, most of the infrastructure is already there not to
> hard-code the aggregate function. Supporting multiranges is already a
> nice improvement. E.g. it should cut down on disk usage when a record
> gets updated frequently. Supporting arbitrary types also seems very
> powerful, and we already do that for PKs.
I think we could also handle multiranges in a hardcoded way? Ranges and
multiranges are hardcoded concepts anyway. It's just when we move to
arbitrary types supporting containment, then it gets a bit more complicated.
What would a patch that adds just multiranges on the FK side, but
without the full pluggable gist support, look like?
> I don't see any drawbacks from supporting inferred REFERENCES with
> temporal tables, so my vote is to break from the standard here, and
> *not* apply that follow-up patch. Should I add some docs about that?
> Also skipping the patch will cause some annoying merge conflicts, so
> let me know if that's what you choose and I'll handle them right away.
I agree we can allow this.
view thread (24+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox