On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 21:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> See, that gets complicated, because now you're restricting the range
> of values that can be expressed by the range type to something less
> than the natural range of the data type. I am not sure the value of
> supporting that is sufficient to justify the amount of extra code that
> will be required to make it work. I'd say for a first version, nail
> down the representation. Perhaps in a future version you could have
> compress/uncompress methods sort of like GIST,
OK, I can live with that.
> ALTER TYPE timestamptz
> ADD INTERFACE increment timestamp_pl_interval(timestamptz, interval),
> ADD INTERFACE decrement timestamp_mi_interval(timestamptz, interval);
I think we chatted about this before. Sounds like a good idea to me
(except the name -- "increment" is not the same as "plus").
However, this is orthogonal, I think. I can always ask the user to
specify everything when creating a Range Type, and then we can make them
default to use the interface functions later. Some, like "plus" might be
constant, but people certainly might want to specify alternate
comparators.
Regards,Jeff Davis