Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
Date: 2010-04-09 17:50:56
Message-ID: 4BBF22B0020000250003066C@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I dowanna rework the type system. I'm not even 100% sure I want
> to implement what I actually proposed. I do want to find out if
> people think the framework makes sense and whether it's the right
> way forward for those projects that need these features.

What you proposed sounds like it would be cleaner and less work than
further perverting the index system as a source of information about
types or hard-coding knowledge anywhere else.

> What you're proposing here sounds suspiciously like something that
> should be handled by creating domains

Not really. Unless I've missed something domains are a single-level
layer over a data type. I find them very useful and use them
heavily, but the standard implementation is rather limited. Perhaps
that would be the area to add the functionality I suggested, though.
I'm totally at the hand-waving stage on it, with no concrete ideas.
I just thought that if you were adding more type information,
oriented aournd the types themselves rather than index AMs, some form
of inheritence might fit in gracefully.

> in any case it's almost entirely unrelated to what I was talking
> about.

OK

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-04-09 18:23:37 Re: BUG #5412: Crash in production SIGSEGV, equalTupleDescs (tupdesc1=0x7f7f7f7f, tupdesc2=0x966508c4) at tupdesc.c
Previous Message Łukasz Dejneka 2010-04-09 17:35:11 Re: How to modify default Type (TSQuery) behaviour?