Re: user-defined numeric data types triggering ERROR: unsupported type

Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> [ scalarineqsel may fall over when used by extension operators ]

> What about using two-pronged approach:

> 1) fall back to mid bucket in back branches (9.3 - 10)
> 2) do something smarter (along the lines you outlined) in PG11

Sure.  We need to test the fallback case anyway.

>> [ sketch of a more extensible design ]

> Sounds reasonable to me, I guess - I can't really think about anything
> simpler giving us the same flexibility.

Actually, on further thought, that's still too simple.  If you look
at convert_string_to_scalar() you'll see it's examining all three
values concurrently (the probe value, of one datatype, and two bin
boundary values of possibly a different type).  The reason is that
it's stripping off whatever common prefix those strings have before
trying to form a numeric equivalent.  While certainly
convert_string_to_scalar is pretty stupid in the face of non-ASCII
sort orders, the prefix-stripping is something I really don't want
to give up.  So the design I sketched of considering each value
totally independently isn't good enough.

We could, perhaps, provide an API that lets an operator estimation
function replace convert_to_scalar in toto, but that seems like
you'd still end up duplicating code in many cases.  Not sure about
how to find a happy medium.

			regards, tom lane