Re: Constraint Type Coercion issue?

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:23:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been thinking about this off and on, and would like to solve it
> in the 8.2 time frame, but it's not happening for 8.1. At a minimum
> it'll require some significant changes in our concept of what an
> operator class is. The half-jelled ideas I have involve inventing
[snip]

How much discussion has there been on this? I've been working my way
through COLLATE support and indexes and realised that what I really
want is to allow the comparison functions in operator classes to be
three argument functions. The two things to compare and the collate
order. A descending index is really just another collate order, albeit
one easily imposed from the outside.

Although numbers tend not to have many interesting collate orders,
complex numbers do, as do obviously strings. To some extent, collate
implies a sort of parameterised operator class...

Definitly 8.2 stuff, and it's not simple stuff either...

--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.