On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: >> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:54 PM, ian link <i...@ilink.io> wrote: > >> > It seems pretty clear that assuming '+' and '-' are addition and >> > subtraction >> > is a bad idea. I don't think it would be too tricky to add support for new >> > operator strategies. Andrew Gierth suggested calling these new strategies >> > "offset -" and "offset +", which I think describes it pretty well. I >> > assigned the operator itself to be "@+" and "@-" but that can obviously be >> > changed. If this sounds like a good path to you guys, I will go ahead and >> > implement the operators for the appropriate types. Please let me know if I >> > am misunderstanding something - I am still figuring stuff out :) >> >> I don't think I understand the design you have in mind. I'm actually >> not clear that it would be all that bad to assume fixed operator >> names, as we apparently do in a few places despite the existence of >> operator classes. But if that is bad, then I don't know how using @+ >> and @- instead helps anything. > > Yeah. > > Currently, all operator classes are tied to access methods. Since > nobody seems to have any great idea about creating an access method that > requires addition and subtraction, would it make sense to have operator > classes that exist solely to support keeping track of such operators for > the various datatypes?
I suppose if we really wanted to do this, it would make more sense to have a new kind of object, maybe CREATE TYPE INTERFACE, rather than shoehorning it into the operator class machinery. It seems like a fairly heavyweight solution, however. -- 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