| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Dunstan" <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <momjian(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update: < * Allow adding enumerated values to an existing |
| Date: | 2008-04-25 20:37:09 |
| Message-ID: | 28382.1209155829@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Dunstan" <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> writes:
> I wonder if it's worth revisiting the decision to save enums on disk
> as oids. The very first idea that I had was to have an enum value as
> the combination of both an enum id and the ordinal value. We would
> presumably make both say 16bits so we could still be be passed by
> value. This would restrict us to 2^16 enum types per database and 2^16
> values per type, but if anyone is getting within an order of magnitude
> of either limit I'd be very interested in seeing what they're doing.
I seem to remember that we discussed that and rejected it, but I don't
remember the reasoning...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-25 20:48:57 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update: < * Allow adding enumerated values to an existing |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-04-25 20:34:14 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update: < * Allow adding enumerated values to an existing |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-04-25 20:44:34 | Re: Proposed patch - psql wraps at window width |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-04-25 20:34:14 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update: < * Allow adding enumerated values to an existing |