From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Chris Travers" <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Bug and/or feature? Complex data types in tables... |
Date: | 2004-01-01 15:48:22 |
Message-ID: | EDFFE6AC-3C71-11D8-A298-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 31, 2003, at 7:20 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> This concept of using complex types in tables actually does have one
> legitimate use. When used with casts and functions, you could use it
> as a
> "poor-man's datatype" development method.
>
> Here is a hypothetical example. Imagine for a moment that there was
> no CIDR
> datatype. I could create a datatype as a set of ints and then create
> casting functions which I could use for display of the data. This
> would be
> similar to C except that it could be done by people like myself whose C
> coding skills are not up to the level where I or anyone else would
> want them
> in the database backend ;-)
This is a situation where PostgreSQL's CREATE DOMAIN, or CREATE TYPE
support would be useful, I think. Is there a reason these wouldn't work
as well as using a "table type"?
Happy New Year!
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-01-01 16:12:25 | Re: GetLastInsertID ? |
Previous Message | Stephane Pinel | 2004-01-01 15:10:56 | GetLastInsertID ? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ivan | 2004-01-01 15:55:18 | time format |
Previous Message | William ZHANG | 2004-01-01 05:59:45 | ecpg's minor bug |