On 11/15/21 10:47 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 19 Sep 2021, at 20:32, Simon Riggs <simon.ri...@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
