Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>> According to the docs, domains are not meant for that purpose, but
>> for changing constraints of a type. Is it possible to define a domain
>> that will have the same defaults and constraints as the base type,
>> but will have different comparison functions? Will that provide me
>> with what I need?
> Domains constrain the allowed values of a data type and nothing more.
> If you were able to override operators, then you would create a new
> data type, thus losing a fundamental property of domains. So this is
> not the route you want to pursue.
I agree. I think there are some cases where the function resolution
code would pick a function declared to take the domain as input, but
it'd be a chancy thing, because for all nontrivial cases the code first
flattens domains to base types.
You can make a separate type that just happens to use the same I/O
functions, and then create a binary-compatible cast to the old type to
allow free use of the existing operators. This is much more likely to
work reliably.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
