On 1/4/11 10:18 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> The main drawback here is that only a select group of people will be
> defining discrete range types at all, because it would require them to
> define a function first. Perhaps that's for the best, because, (as Tom
> pointed out) we don't want someone using floats and then specifying a
> granule of '0.01'.
Frankly, I'm still not convinced that *anyone* will really need discrete
range types -- as opposed to continuous range types, which I'm already
using in production ala "temporal". So I'm completely OK with making
discrete range types hard to use, as long as continous range types are
easy to use.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
