Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Enums patch v2

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>
Subject: Re: Enums patch v2
Date: 2006-12-19 09:58:48
Message-ID: 200612191058.49304.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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.

The difference is that foreign-key-referenced data is part of your data 
whereas enums would be part of the type system used to model the data.

An objection to enums on the ground that foreign keys can accomplish the 
same thing could be extended to object to any data type with a finite 
domain.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-12-19 11:25:27
Subject: Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum
Previous:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2006-12-19 09:31:27
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-12-19 14:34:27
Subject: Re: Enums patch v2
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2006-12-19 09:48:03
Subject: Re: Updated XML patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group