Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> By my count there are only about 20 datatypes in core for which it looks
>> sensible to provide a range type (ie, it's a non-deprecated,
>> non-composite type with a standard default btree opclass). For that
>> many, we might as well just build 'em in.
> right. hm -- can you have multiple range type definitions for a
> particular type?
In principle, sure, if the type has multiple useful sort orderings.
I don't immediately see any core types for which we'd bother. (In
particular I don't see a use case for range types corresponding to
the *_pattern_ops btree opclasses, especially now that COLLATE "C"
has rendered them sorta obsolete.)
BTW, Jeff, have you worked out the implications of collations for
textual range types? I confess to not having paid much attention
to range types lately.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
