| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Range Types |
| Date: | 2011-01-09 01:32:01 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinb-cwnLehw2J-MTKSoodj3u2O-JBd4i=kmqEL9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 15:47 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Any ideas? Maybe, with alignment and a "flags" byte (to hold
>> > inclusivity, infinite boundaries, etc.), the extra 4 bytes doesn't cost
>> > much, anyway?
>>
>> I'd be really reluctant to bloat the range representation by 4 bytes
>> to support an anyrange type. Better to defer this until the great day
>> when we get a better typmod system, at least IMHO.
>
> Can you elaborate? How can we have generic functions without ANYRANGE?
>
> And without generic functions, how do we make it easy for users to
> specify a new range type?
Oh, hmm. What generic functions did you have in mind?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-09 01:36:48 | Re: WIP: Range Types |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-09 01:31:07 | Re: DISCARD ALL ; stored procedures |