Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
Date: 2010-04-09 23:53:51
Message-ID: l2i603c8f071004091653o83a1d63md424c8c15e1750c0@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The advantage of specifying a + and a - in the type interface is that
>> the unit definition can then be specified as part of the type
>> declaration itself.  So you can do:
>>
>> CREATE TYPE ts_sec AS RANGE OVER timestamp (UNIT = '1s');
>> CREATE TYPE ts_min AS RANGE OVER timestamp (UNIT = '1m');
>>
>> All of the stuff about defining + and - is hidden from the user - it's
>> part of the type interface, which is pre-created.
>
> The disadvantage is that it does not permit irregularly spaced units.

True. The only types I can think of that have irregularly spaced
units would be things based on floating points, and I was assuming
that people would only want continuous intervals on those. If someone
really wants to be able to deduce that [1.0,3.0) = [1.0,3.0-epsilon),
then we need a different design. But I find it hard to believe that's
very useful. Maybe you feel otherwise?

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-04-09 23:55:34 Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
Previous Message Erik Rijkers 2010-04-09 23:23:15 testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance