Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Friday 31 October 2008 17:01:05 Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> (1) Can you compare a literal of the base type?
> No, unless you create additional casts or operators.
>> (2) Can you explicitly cast to the base type?
> There is an implicit AS ASSIGNMENT cast between the base type and the distinct
> type in each direction.
Hmm ... so out-of-the-box, a distinct type would have no applicable
functions/operators whatsoever. You couldn't even create an index on
it. This seems a bit too impoverished to be useful. And given the
known gotchas with creating functions/operators on domains, I'm not
convinced someone could fix the problem by creating specialized
functions for their distinct type. Even if they could fix it,
having to set up a custom btree opclass in order to have an index
seems to take this out of the "easy to use" category.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Vladimir Sitnikov||Date: 2008-11-01 20:43:40|
|Subject: Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements v2|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2008-11-01 20:22:00|
|Subject: Re: Distinct types|