Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Yeb Havinga
Subject Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
Date
Msg-id 4BBF42BF.1010502@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces  (Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> From the implementers perspective, IMHO an extra catalog entry in 
> pg_type is not bad on its own, you would have one anyway if the range 
> type was explicitly programmed. About different kinds of range types - 
> I would not know how to 'promote' integer into anything else but just 
> one kind of 'range of integer' type. So the number of extra pg_types 
> would be more like O(number of linear ordered base types).
.. I now see the example of different ranges in your original mail with 
different unit increments. Making that more general so there could be 
continuous and discrete ranges and for the latter, what would the 
increment be.. OTOH is a range of integers with increment x a different 
type from range of integers with increment y, if x<>y? Maybe the 
increment step and continuous/discrete could be typmods.

regards
Yeb Havinga






pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yeb Havinga
Date:
Subject: Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: GSOC PostgreSQL partitioning issue