On 2019-Dec-20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I am not convinced that adding TYPTYPE_MULTIRANGE is really necessary. > Why can't we just treat those types as TYPTYPE_RANGE and distinguish > them using TYPCATEGORY_MULTIRANGE? That's what we do for arrays. I'll > try to do that next.
I think this can be simplified if we make the the multirange's pg_type.typelem carry the base range's OID (the link in the other direction already appears as pg_range.mltrngtypid, though I'd recommend renaming that to pg_range.rngmultitypid to maintain the "rng" prefix convention). Then we can distinguish a multirange from a plain range easily, both of which have typtype as TYPTYPE_RANGE, because typelem != 0 in a multi. That knowledge can be encapsulated easily in type_is_multirange and pg_dump's getTypes. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
