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

Re: Why so few built-in range types?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?
Date: 2011-12-01 17:19:10
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZDcQP3ROn4oqa5LOdR31ozTCnskgU9_ng6Gz65dZgVSw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:12 AM,  <karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg> wrote:
> I do not think that adding index support to a datatype classifies as
> semantic
> change that will break backward compatibility.

Me neither.  The ip4r type also supports ranges that aren't on
CIDR-block boundaries, which probably isn't something that makes sense
to incorporate into cidr.  But not everyone needs that, and some
people might also need support for ipv6 CIDR blocks, which ip4r
doesn't support.  So I don't necessarily see the existence of ip4r as
a reason why cidr shouldn't have better indexing support.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-12-01 18:00:04
Subject: Re: FlexLocks
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-12-01 17:15:52
Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation

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