On tor, 2011-06-30 at 08:45 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> I don't think it will - as it stands, there isn't a single collatable
> type RANGE but instead one *distinct* type per combination of base
> type, btree opclass and collation. The reasons for that were discussed
> at length - the basic argument for doing it that way was to make a
> range represent a fixed set of values.
How would the system catalogs be initialized under that theory: surely
you're not going to seed (nr. of types) * (nr. of collations) * (nr. of
opclasses) range types in initdb?
