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

Re: Distinct types

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Distinct types
Date: 2008-11-28 15:58:43
Message-ID: AAC89AC7-58EE-4917-9F0C-E35E48D15938@kineticode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Nov 28, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> I understand, but the work required to make it work properly is too  
> much under the commit fest spirit right now.  In particular, I'm  
> thinking we should try to devise a clever way to make the CREATE  
> ORDERING facility that SQL has for user-defined types interface with  
> our more general operator and operator class mechanisms.  This would  
> then also benefit other sorts of user-defined types.  There are also  
> a number of unclear assumptions about the domain behavior implicitly  
> in the system that will possibly require a lengthy shaking-out  
> process if we add other sorts of derived types

Speaking of other sorts of derived types: might they include something  
just like enums, but sorting on the string values defined for the enum  
rather than on the order in which the values were defined in the enum?  
I'd use something like that all the timeā€¦

Thanks,

David

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-11-28 16:09:21
Subject: Re: Distinct types
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-11-28 15:40:13
Subject: Re: Immediate shutdown during recovery

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