Re: Range types

Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> I was referring to the syntax for how the user actually defined an enum
> not about it's implementation. Basically what I was hoping to get out of
> this thread was whether it was better to allow the user to define their
> own range types by specifying the base type and possibly the granularity
> and default inclusiveness of the end points, or if we should just
> provide the types like period and intrange?

If 99% of the usefulness will come from ranges over a fixed set of
datatypes, it might be best to just do that. That last 1% would be
very expensive to get, when you consider all the infrastructure that
would be involved with an extensible definition.

If we think there's a lot of usefulness for ranges over user-defined
types, then this argument doesn't help ...

regards, tom lane