Re: Range Types, discrete and/or continuous

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> However, this is orthogonal, I think. I can always ask the user to
>> specify everything when creating a Range Type, and then we can make them
>> default to use the interface functions later. Some, like "plus" might be
>> constant, but people certainly might want to specify alternate
>> comparators.

> If it were me, I would go design and implement the type interface part
> first. But it's not.

I agree with Jeff's plan: seems like taking a first cut at the higher
level is worthwhile, to make sure you know what you need from the
type-system interfaces.

FWIW, I don't agree with the proposed syntax. We already have a
perfectly extensible CREATE TYPE syntax, so there is no reason to
implement this as an ALTER TYPE operation. What's more, altering
existing datatype declarations is fraught with all kinds of fun
risks, as we were reminded with the recent enum patch.

regards, tom lane