> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Now, this should mostly work conveniently, except that we have >>> +/-infinity (NOEND_ABSTIME/NOSTART_ABSTIME) to deal with ... It might >>> be saner to just desupport +/-infinity for abstime. > >> I don't use those values, so it is no matter to me if we desupport them. It >> seems a bit pointless, though, because we still have to handle legacy >> values that we encounter. I assume some folks will have those values in >> their tables when they upgrade. > > Well, some folks will also have pre-1970 dates in their tables, no? > We're just blowing those off. They'll print out as some post-2038 > date or other, and too bad. > > Basically, the direction this is going in is that abstime will become > an officially supported type, but its range of supported values is "not > too many decades either way from now". If you are using it to store > very old dates then You're Doing It Wrong, and eventually you'll get > bitten. Given that contract, I don't see a place for +/-infinity.
Works for me. mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers