From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Range Types and extensions |
Date: | 2011-06-06 23:23:55 |
Message-ID: | 15340.1307402635@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I vote for at minimum the type itself and ANYRANGE to be in core.
> From there you could make it like arrays where the range type is
> automatically generated for each POD type. I would consider that for
> sure on basis of simplicity in user-land unless all the extra types
> and operators are a performance hit.
Auto-generation of range types isn't going to happen, simply because the
range type needs more information than is provided by the base type
declaration. (First, you need a btree opclass, and second, you need a
"next" function if it's a discrete type.)
By my count there are only about 20 datatypes in core for which it looks
sensible to provide a range type (ie, it's a non-deprecated,
non-composite type with a standard default btree opclass). For that
many, we might as well just build 'em in.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-06 23:29:00 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-06 23:11:14 | Re: Visual Studio 2010/Windows SDK 7.1 support |