Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm a bit troubled by the implications though. If anyone creates a
> datatype foo, they'd better not try to make an array-of-foo column
> unless they've made '=' and '<' operators for foo. This seems a bit
> evil, especially for types like "point" which don't have obvious '<'
> semantics, but *do* have uses for arrays. Maybe we'd better think
> twice about how to handle this. How could the lack of an underlying
> '<' be reflected back to the array-type level?
See my last reply. This issue seemed isolated to analyze.
Now there is no requirement to have either '=' or '<' operators for foo
in order to make a foo[] datatype. You'll only need them if you want
statistics. And even at that, if you just create the '=', you'll still
get the reduced level of support as for any other data type that has no
ordering operator. This is how aclitem is currently working with this patch.
Joe