Re: Why so few built-in range types?

On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 12:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> One thing that bothered me while looking at the range types patch is
> that it seemed you'd been mighty conservative about creating built-in
> range types.

During development, I didn't want to juggle the OIDs for too many range
types. That was really the only reason.

> In particular, I don't understand why there's not a
> standard float8range type; that seems like a pretty common case.
> I'd have also expected to see a standard textrange type. What was
> the rationale for leaving these out?

A built-in textrange type would have to have collation "C", right? Do
you think that would be useful to enough people?

One that I'd like to see is an IP address type, but that's complicated
because inet and cidr support netmasks.

Regards,
Jeff Davis