Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system
Date: 2011-07-05 15:11:02
Message-ID: 1309878662.3012.21.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 10:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > But if it's actually better, we should do it. If an intermediate type
> > seems to be problematic, or if people think it's strange to require
> > casting, then I think this is reasonable.
>
> I don't understand how the bespoke syntax avoids the need for a cast?

It doesn't, it just avoids the need for an intermediate type.

What I meant was that it might be strange to require a cast on the
result of a function call, because we don't really do that anywhere
else. Florian pointed out that it's common to require casting the
ARRAY[] constructor, so that has more of a precedent. I'm not really
sure how much that matters.

I'm OK with the intermediate type, but Florian seems skeptical of that
idea.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Golub 2011-07-05 15:13:21 Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary"
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-07-05 15:10:03 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Move Trigger and TriggerDesc structs out of rel.h into a new rel