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 <peter_e@gmx.net> 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