Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Re: [CORE] temporal tables (SQL2011)
Hi, thanks for elaborating. yes, of course, I can implement it with 3 triggers, adding a couple of columns. It doesn't affect design and testing which stay the same. As we are developing a product that must support a couple of databases and as I am not really happy with Maria e.a., I want to switch our standard DBMS. We need to support ms and ora as well, so there are h2, db2 and pg, or maybe we switch to some nonrel stuff like neo. A couple of years ago I migrated a cms from db2 to pg, and was quite impressed... thats my current "mind map" :-) Von meinem iPhone gesendet > Am 10.11.2016 um 01:26 schrieb Craig Ringer : > > On 8 Nov. 2016 15:11, "Craig Ringer" wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7 November 2016 at 05:08, Stefan Scheid wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> are there plans to introduce temporal tables? > > > > I don't know of anybody working on them, but someone else may. Try > > searching the list archives. > > I should've mentioned that one of the reasons it doesn't seem to be that high > on many people's priority lists is that it's fairly easy to implement with > triggers and updatable views. There's a greater performance cost than I'd > expect to pay for the same thing done as a built-in feature, but it works > well enough. > > Many ORMs and application frameworks also offer similar capabilities at the > application level. > > So I think temporal tables are one of those nice-to-haves that so far people > just find other ways of doing.
Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Re: [CORE] temporal tables (SQL2011)
On 8 Nov. 2016 15:11, "Craig Ringer" wrote: > > > > On 7 November 2016 at 05:08, Stefan Scheid wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> are there plans to introduce temporal tables? > > I don't know of anybody working on them, but someone else may. Try searching the list archives. I should've mentioned that one of the reasons it doesn't seem to be that high on many people's priority lists is that it's fairly easy to implement with triggers and updatable views. There's a greater performance cost than I'd expect to pay for the same thing done as a built-in feature, but it works well enough. Many ORMs and application frameworks also offer similar capabilities at the application level. So I think temporal tables are one of those nice-to-haves that so far people just find other ways of doing.
Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Re: [CORE] temporal tables (SQL2011)
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Scheid wrote: > are there plans to introduce temporal tables? > I don't know of anyone who is actually working on it, but I agree that it would probably attract some users if we did. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Re: [CORE] temporal tables (SQL2011)
On 7 November 2016 at 05:08, Stefan Scheid wrote: > Hi all, > > are there plans to introduce temporal tables? > > I don't know of anybody working on them, but someone else may. Try searching the list archives. PostgreSQL development happens because people who want features step up and either implement them or convince someone else to implement what they need. The roadmap, such as it is, is "what the contributors and their various customers want". If this is important to you, look into what you need to do to make it happen. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
[HACKERS] Fwd: Re: [CORE] temporal tables (SQL2011)
Hi all, are there plans to introduce temporal tables? best, Stefan Weitergeleitete Nachricht Betreff:Re: [CORE] temporal tables (SQL2011) Datum: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:27:40 -0400 Von:Peter Eisentraut An: Stefan Scheid Kopie (CC): pgsql-c...@postgresql.org On 11/1/16 12:08 PM, Stefan Scheid wrote: > how about implementing this feature? > > Want to have a real argument to move 150 customers from mysql to > postgresql ... > cause they are not able or willing to use DB2 or Oracle ... The core team does not coordinate the development effort. Please write to pgsql-hackers to discuss development ideas.
