On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: >>> However, this is orthogonal, I think. I can always ask the user to >>> specify everything when creating a Range Type, and then we can make them >>> default to use the interface functions later. Some, like "plus" might be >>> constant, but people certainly might want to specify alternate >>> comparators. > >> If it were me, I would go design and implement the type interface part >> first. But it's not. > > I agree with Jeff's plan: seems like taking a first cut at the higher > level is worthwhile, to make sure you know what you need from the > type-system interfaces. > > FWIW, I don't agree with the proposed syntax. We already have a > perfectly extensible CREATE TYPE syntax, so there is no reason to > implement this as an ALTER TYPE operation. What's more, altering > existing datatype declarations is fraught with all kinds of fun > risks, as we were reminded with the recent enum patch.
Fair enough. I'm not wedded to the syntax (or the order of development). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
