Re: Range types

Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If the only interesting use-cases are ints and enums, maybe we could
>> just hard-wire it.

> I think dates could be added to that list as well.

Good point. Network addresses too probably.

> But any implementation that doesn't do ranges of timestamptz are
> non-starters as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, I quite agree --- I'm just complaining about trying to force
timestamps into a discrete model that they don't fit. What I was trying
to suggest was that we could hard-wire a mechanism that says ints and a
few other predetermined cases are discrete while everything else is
treated as continuous.

> Personally, I'd rather just see float timestamps go away.

That's more or less irrelevant to my point. A large fraction of the
datatypes in Postgres do not have discrete behavior. Reals, numerics,
timestamps, strings, bitstrings, geometrics. Not to mention arrays and
composites. Creating an artificial granularity is simply the wrong way
to approach it, even for those types where there's an implementation
artifact that allows you to make it sort-of-work.

regards, tom lane