On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 21:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> See, that gets complicated, because now you're restricting the range >> of values that can be expressed by the range type to something less >> than the natural range of the data type. I am not sure the value of >> supporting that is sufficient to justify the amount of extra code that >> will be required to make it work. I'd say for a first version, nail >> down the representation. Perhaps in a future version you could have >> compress/uncompress methods sort of like GIST, > > OK, I can live with that. > >> ALTER TYPE timestamptz >> ADD INTERFACE increment timestamp_pl_interval(timestamptz, interval), >> ADD INTERFACE decrement timestamp_mi_interval(timestamptz, interval); > > I think we chatted about this before. Sounds like a good idea to me > (except the name -- "increment" is not the same as "plus"). > > 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. -- 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
