Re: Range Types and extensions

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