| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Distinct types |
| Date: | 2008-11-28 22:35:08 |
| Message-ID: | 3763.1227911708@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Friday 28 November 2008 18:49:17 Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem I see with distinct types is that the typing is *too*
>> strong --- the datatype has in fact got no usable operations whatever.
> You are supposed to define your own. It's a new type after all. You only
> borrow the representation from an existing one.
And the I/O functions ... and you still need enough access to the type
to write useful operators for it. Which is not an issue too much at the
C-code level but it sure is at SQL level.
So this seems to me to be a nice conceptual idea but it's still not
clear that it works well in practice.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-28 22:52:03 | Re: HEAD build failure on win32 mingw |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-11-28 22:26:13 | Re: Distinct types |