Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types
Date: 2008-07-30 19:58:29
Message-ID: 19842.1217447909@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:09, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What about enums?
>>
>> Er, what about them? I don't see that they enter into this at all.

> Well, from a user's point of view, they're pretty much just strings

But they're a very restricted set of strings; I can't see that there's
any general-purpose use for allowing them as the source or destination
of I/O conversions.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-30 20:10:22 Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-30 19:50:13 Should creating a new base type require superuser status?