On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 08:09:47AM +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Dunstan wrote:
> >Here is an updated version of the enums patch. It has been brought up to
> >date and applies against current CVS HEAD. The original email is at ,
> >and describes the implementation.
> I'm sorry I missed the original discussions, but I have to ask: Why do
> we want enums in core? The only potential advantage I can see over using
> a look-up table and FK references is performance.
A natural ordering is another. I'd love to be able to make a type
color that has
and then be able to do an ORDER BY color;
> And I'd rather spend time improving the performance of FK checks
> than add extra machinery to do the same thing in a different way.
Not the same thing.
> Ignoring my general dislike of enums, I have a few issues with the patch
> as it is:
> 1. What's the point of having comparison operators for enums? For most
> use cases, there's no natural ordering of enum values.
A natural ordering is precisely the use case for enums. Otherwise,
you just use a FK to a one-column table and have done.
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Remember to vote!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: ITAGAKI Takahiro||Date: 2006-12-19 08:53:06|
|Subject: Re: Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2006-12-19 08:36:42|
|Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: ITAGAKI Takahiro||Date: 2006-12-19 09:17:10|
|Subject: Load distributed checkpoint patch|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2006-12-19 08:47:04|