On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 09:39 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Friday 31 October 2008 17:01:05 Kevin Grittner wrote: > > >> (1) Can you compare a literal of the base type? > > > > > No, unless you create additional casts or operators. > > > > >> (2) Can you explicitly cast to the base type? > > > > > There is an implicit AS ASSIGNMENT cast between the base type and the > > > distinct > > > type in each direction. > > > > Hmm ... so out-of-the-box, a distinct type would have no applicable > > functions/operators whatsoever. You couldn't even create an index on > > it. This seems a bit too impoverished to be useful. And given the > > I didn't have any problem creating and using an index on a distinct type > at all. >
Oh, I see, it doesn't have an equality operator for itself. That is obviously limiting. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers