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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2011-06-30 16:59:43|
|Subject: Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-06-30 16:44:13|
|Subject: Re: hint bit cache v6|