On Jun30, 2011, at 09:05 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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?
There's CREATE RANGE. By default, no range types would exists I believe.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
