| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Distinct types |
| Date: | 2008-11-07 18:36:30 |
| Message-ID: | 21661.1226082990@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>> There is an implicit AS ASSIGNMENT cast between the base type and the distinct
>>> type in each direction.
>>
>> Hmm ... so out-of-the-box, a distinct type would have no applicable
>> functions/operators whatsoever. You couldn't even create an index on
>> it. This seems a bit too impoverished to be useful. And given the
> I didn't have any problem creating and using an index on a distinct type
> at all.
[ scratches head... ] That should have failed, if the cast is really AS
ASSIGNMENT and not implicit. If it is implicit, how distinct is the type?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2008-11-07 18:43:34 | Re: [RRR] Tests citext casts |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2008-11-07 18:34:46 | Re: Patch for ALTER DATABASE WITH TABLESPACE |