On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:33:02PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 21:29 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > > If I'm not mistaken about this, that would imply that we also > > cannot have two range types with the same base type, the same > > opclass, but different collations. Which seems rather > > unfortunate... In fact, if that's true, maybe restricing range > > types to the database collation would be best... > > Yes, we cannot have two range types with the same base type. That is > a consequence of the polymorphic type system, which needs to be able > to determine the range type given the base type. > > A workaround is to use domains. That is effective, but awkward. For > instance, given: > CREATE DOMAIN textdomain AS text; > CREATE TYPE textdomainrange AS RANGE (subtype=textdomain); > then: > '[a,z)'::textdomainrange @> 'b'::textdomain > would work, but: > '[a,z)'::textdomainrange @> 'b' > would not, which would be annoying. > > I don't see a way around this. It's not a collation problem, but a > general "multiple range types with the same subtype" problem.
How might you address that problem, assuming you had the needed resources to do it? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers