| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system |
| Date: | 2011-06-30 07:11:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3E66E0E9-0D2C-45B6-825D-C003423550DD@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun30, 2011, at 09:05 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2011-06-30 at 08:45 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> I don't think it will - as it stands, there isn't a single collatable
>> type RANGE but instead one *distinct* type per combination of base
>> type, btree opclass and collation. The reasons for that were discussed
>> at length - the basic argument for doing it that way was to make a
>> range represent a fixed set of values.
>
> How would the system catalogs be initialized under that theory: surely
> you're not going to seed (nr. of types) * (nr. of collations) * (nr. of
> opclasses) range types in initdb?
There's CREATE RANGE. By default, no range types would exists I believe.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2011-06-30 07:37:41 | Re: Bug in SQL/MED? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-06-30 07:05:29 | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system |