Re: Storage sizes for dates/times (documentation bug?)

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:43:05PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > Yes, I know about tagged types but have shyed away from them
> > so far courtesy of them not being adjustable after the fact.
>
> What do you mean by this? Adjustable in what way?

This

svana.org/kleptog/pgsql/taggedtypes.html

is currently down for me but Google has a cache. I was
probably wrongly remembering this:

When you delete a tagged type some cruft is left behind
(not in the system catalog though).

Perhaps I confuse this with some limitation of a previous
implementation of the enum type. Also perhaps I was
misguided into thinking tags cannot be modified by the
"don't delete from table of tags" part.

> Truly, taggedtypes are a really useful feature but I think the chance
> of them being in the main tree approximatly nil, which is enough reason
> to stay away from them.
Agree. Another one is non-indexability which I'd truly need.

> > Should I be using a custom domain for this ?
>
> You just need to store the pair (time,zone), I don't think domains are
> flexible enough for that. A complex type maybe (but then you've just
> reinvented taggedtypes, inefficiently :) )
Which I'd rather avoid.

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346