Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types
Date
Msg-id DDFB50E9-CB6B-4CC3-B229-57F3FFD792E5@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jul 29, 2008, at 16:45, Tom Lane wrote:

>> Nice! Does it also allow all of the casts to and from text to
>> implicitly work, e.g,
>
> No, but we could think about that.  Do we really want that to work for
> any member of the string category?  It seems a bit overly broad to me
> ...

I was thinking about other text-style types, like UUID and UPC, and  
was thinking probably not, at least for them. OTOH, some strings  
should work that way, like citext or enums, the difference being that,  
in most contexts, they can be treated as plain text, since they're  
usually thought of that way. Or so it seems to me. Might there be a  
way to create that distinction?

Best,

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types
Next
From: "Robert Haas"
Date:
Subject: modifying views