On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Right. In that respect, it's more like a record type: many possible > record types exist, but you only define the ones you want.
Well, okay. How is this same problem handled for RECORD types, then? >> By default, no range types would exists I believe. > > I was planning to include _some_ by default. Probably not text ranges, > but integer and timestamp[tz] ranges. If nothing else, it makes it > easier to document. +1 David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
