On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Jeff Davis
<pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 12:18 -0600, Eric McKeeth wrote:
> This is ugly, but it does seem to enforce the constraint I need, of
> non-overlapping dates where sharing an endpoint is not considered an
> overlap.
The period type supports different inclusivity/exclusivity combinations.
So, the period:
'[2009-01-02, 2009-01-03)'
Does not overlap with:
'[2009-01-03, 2009-01-04)'
Because "[" or "]" means "inclusive" and "(" or ")" means "exclusive".
My problem wasn't with getting the period type to represent overlaps with the correct inclusivity/exclusivity, but in getting it to work with my exclusion constraint. Can you show an example of how I could get that working perhaps?
For further discussion, you can join the temporal-general@pgfoundry.org
mailing list (sign up at
http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/temporal-general ). If this still
does not solve your use case, I'd like to see if it can be modified to
do so.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
I've subscribed to the temporal-general list, so we can move this discussion there if that's more appropriate.
Thanks,
Eric