Re: Why so few built-in range types? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Why so few built-in range types?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZDcQP3ROn4oqa5LOdR31ozTCnskgU9_ng6Gz65dZgVSw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why so few built-in range types?  (karavelov@mail.bg)
Responses Re: Why so few built-in range types?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:12 AM,  <karavelov@mail.bg> wrote:
> I do not think that adding index support to a datatype classifies as
> semantic
> change that will break backward compatibility.

Me neither.  The ip4r type also supports ranges that aren't on
CIDR-block boundaries, which probably isn't something that makes sense
to incorporate into cidr.  But not everyone needs that, and some
people might also need support for ipv6 CIDR blocks, which ip4r
doesn't support.  So I don't necessarily see the existence of ip4r as
a reason why cidr shouldn't have better indexing support.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: FlexLocks