On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:31:05AM -0800, Scott Bailey wrote: > Jeff Davis wrote: > >On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 10:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Would it be OK if we handled float timestamp ranges as continuous > and int64 timestamps discrete?
That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Whatever timestamp ranges are, float and int64 should be treated the same way so as not to get "surprises" due to implementation details. > You effectively lose the ability to build non-contiguous sets with > continuous ranges. Which is integral to the work I'm doing (union, > intersect, coalesce and minus sets of ranges) > > As for the extra bits, would it be better to just require continuous > ranges to be either [] or [)? But I don't know which would be > preferred. My inclination would be toward [), but Tom seemed to > indicate that perhaps [] was the norm. [] makes certain operations--namely the important ones in calendaring--impossible, or at least incredibly kludgy, to do. I think we ought to leave openness at each end up to the user, independent of the underlying implementation details. FWIW, I think it would be a good idea to treat timestamps as continuous in all cases. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers