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

Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system
Date: 2011-06-30 16:58:42
Message-ID: ACDCDE86-F857-4C47-968F-BECC190E170A@kineticode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:

> Right. In that respect, it's more like a record type: many possible
> record types exist, but you only define the ones you want.

Well, okay. How is this same problem handled for RECORD types, then?

>> By default, no range types would exists I believe.
> 
> I was planning to include _some_ by default. Probably not text ranges,
> but integer and timestamp[tz] ranges. If nothing else, it makes it
> easier to document.

+1

David



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2011-06-30 16:59:43
Subject: Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-06-30 16:44:13
Subject: Re: hint bit cache v6

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