From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system |
Date: | 2011-06-29 17:11:52 |
Message-ID: | 55DA0626-7369-491A-AAD9-0CC5903E4680@phlo.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun29, 2011, at 18:34 , Robert Haas wrote:
> It also seems a bit strange to me that we're contemplating a system
> where users are always going to have to cast the return type.
> Generally, casts are annoying and we want to minimize the need for
> them. I'm not sure what the alternative is, though, unless we create
> separate constructor functions for each type: int8range_cc(1, 2).
Well, if we want multiple range types per base type (which we do), then
the user needs to specify which one to use somehow. A cast seems the most
natural way to do that to me - after all, casting is *the* way to coerce
value to a certain type.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-06-29 17:13:55 | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-29 17:07:25 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |