Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types
Date: 2008-07-30 20:10:22
Message-ID: 20069.1217448622@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Jul 30, 2008, at 10:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>> UUID and so on aren't considered part of the string category, and
>> shouldn't be IMHO ... any type that has semantics significantly
>> different from "arbitrary string of text" doesn't belong.

> Yes, that was essentially my point. "arbitrary string of text" types  
> are probably fairly rare, since one can just use text or citext or  
> varchar.

Good point --- so new members of STRING category aren't going to be that
common, except for domains which apparently aren't bothering people
anyway.  I'll go ahead and make the change.  (I think it's just a
trivial change in find_coercion_pathway, and everything else should
Just Work.  If it turns out not to be trivial maybe we should
reconsider.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2008-07-30 20:11:46
Subject: Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-30 19:58:29
Subject: Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group