Re: Range Types and extensions

* Dimitri Fontaine (dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr) wrote:
> That means that this is, IMHO, the right approach. Have core support
> that enables user defined RANGE types with indexing and planner support,
> etc, like we have OPERATOR CLASS and FAMILY and all the jazz.

Yes, we do, however..

> And the useful stuff you need to have to benefit from that core support
> would be an extension. It could be a core maintained extension, and it
> could even get installed by default, so that all the users would need to
> do is 'CREATE EXTENSION timeranges;', for example.

I don't like the idea of having a capability which is not utilized
in core. We should make it so extensions can *also* have access to
define their own, but we should have the basics covered in core.

> a. core extensions, shipped by default

Having it as a core extension might work, but I'm not really 'sold' on
it.

Thanks,

Stephen