| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pre-proposal: type interfaces |
| Date: | 2009-10-24 20:10:43 |
| Message-ID: | 7A2BCECB-EB5D-4084-AE40-42DCFBCEBB40@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Still on the phone...
--
dim
Le 23 oct. 2009 à 21:16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> a écrit :
> I'd feel more comfortable with being able to add some flags to an
> opclass (or more likely an opfamily) that assert that its strategy
> numbers agree with some convention or other.
The overlap operator only concern multi dimensional data types I
think, it seems to me we can use the term "range".
So whart about applying semantics to strategy numbers for RANGE
OPERATOR CLASS ... GIST ...
I'm not sure how scalable we want to be there, so maybe those
(options, range, ...) would be better, but the flexibility Will
certainly not be that good as each option Will require unique strategy
numbers...
Regards,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-10-24 20:26:58 | Re: Tightening binary receive functions |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-10-24 20:01:37 | Re: Parsing config files in a directory |