Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > [ hacky special-case representation for discrete timestamp ranges ]
I'm still not exactly clear on what the use-case is for discrete timestamp ranges, and I wonder how many people are going to be happy with a representation that can't handle a range that's open-ended on the left. > So, the idea is to default to a continuous range type, but if the user > supplies a granule, prior and next functions, and other necessary > details, then it becomes a discrete range type. Huh? You're not going to be able to have a special case data representation for one or two data types at the same time as you have a function-based datatype-independent concept of a parameterized range type. Well, maybe you could have special code paths for just date and timestamp but it'd be horrid. More importantly, the notion of a representation granule is still 100% wishful thinking for any inexact-representation datatype, which is going to be a severe crimp in getting this accepted for timestamp, let alone defining it in a way that would allow users to try to apply it to floats. Float timestamps might not be the default case anymore but they are still supported. I think you should let go of the feeling that you have to shave bytes off the storage format. You're creating a whole lot of work for yourself and a whole lot of user-visible corner cases in return for what ultimately isn't much. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers