On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>>> However, this is orthogonal, I think. I can always ask the user to
>>> specify everything when creating a Range Type, and then we can make them
>>> default to use the interface functions later. Some, like "plus" might be
>>> constant, but people certainly might want to specify alternate
>> If it were me, I would go design and implement the type interface part
>> first. But it's not.
> I agree with Jeff's plan: seems like taking a first cut at the higher
> level is worthwhile, to make sure you know what you need from the
> type-system interfaces.
> FWIW, I don't agree with the proposed syntax. We already have a
> perfectly extensible CREATE TYPE syntax, so there is no reason to
> implement this as an ALTER TYPE operation. What's more, altering
> existing datatype declarations is fraught with all kinds of fun
> risks, as we were reminded with the recent enum patch.
Fair enough. I'm not wedded to the syntax (or the order of development).
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: fazool mein||Date: 2010-10-26 18:03:55|
|Subject: Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-10-26 17:49:30|
|Subject: Re: Simplifying replication|