From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
Date: | 2009-10-30 22:28:29 |
Message-ID: | 1256941709.2649.5.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 17:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> IMO, the real problem is that the type interface is poorly
> encapsulated. There's way too much code that knows about the internal
> details of a type - namely, that it's a 32-bit integer modified by a
> second 32-bit integer. I think there are still places where the code
> doesn't even know about typmod. If we're going to go to the trouble
> of changing anything, I think it should probably involve inserting an
> abstraction layer that will make future extensions easier. But I have
> a feeling that's going to be a tough sell.
Yeah. We're way off topic for partitioning, so I think it's best to just
table this discussion until someone comes up with a good idea.
It's not the end of the world to write some generic C code, and have
multiple types make use of it, e.g. PERIOD, PERIODTZ, INT4RANGE,
FLOAT8RANGE, etc. It's a little redundant and creates some catalog
bloat, but I'm not too concerned about it right now. Certainly not
enough to rewrite the type system.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-30 22:44:31 | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-30 21:39:51 | Re: Syntax for partitioning |