On 11/15/21 10:47 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2021, at 20:32, Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> My preferred approach would be to do this "for free" in the table
>> access method, but we're a long way from this in terms of actual
>> implementation. When Corey suggested earlier that we just put the
>> syntax in there, this was the direction I was thinking.
>>
>> After waiting a day since I wrote the above, I think we should go with
>> (2) as Corey suggests, at least for now, and we can always add (3)
>> later.
>
> This patch no longer applies, are there plans on implementing the approaches
> discussed above, or should we close this entry and open a new one when a
> freshly baked pathed is ready?
I spent a lot of time a while ago trying to fix this patch (not just
rebase it), and I think it should just be rejected, unfortunately.
The design decisions are just too flawed, and it conflates system_time
periods with system versioning which is very wrong.
--
Vik Fearing