On 2019-Dec-20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I am not convinced that adding TYPTYPE_MULTIRANGE is really necessary.
> Why can't we just treat those types as TYPTYPE_RANGE and distinguish
> them using TYPCATEGORY_MULTIRANGE? That's what we do for arrays. I'll
> try to do that next.
I think this can be simplified if we make the the multirange's
pg_type.typelem carry the base range's OID (the link in the other
direction already appears as pg_range.mltrngtypid, though I'd recommend
renaming that to pg_range.rngmultitypid to maintain the "rng" prefix
convention). Then we can distinguish a multirange from a plain range
easily, both of which have typtype as TYPTYPE_RANGE, because typelem !=
0 in a multi. That knowledge can be encapsulated easily in
type_is_multirange and pg_dump's getTypes.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
