Re: Custom Data Type Question

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, Greg Mitchell <gmitchell(at)atdesk(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Custom Data Type Question
Date: 2006-11-21 14:29:38
Message-ID: 45630D52.5000301@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 02:51 +0000, Tom Dunstan wrote:
>
> In the long run, as currently envisaged, enums don't do all that I would
> like.

In a sense they do more than you want. They will provide the ability to
set values much faster than anything using an FK constraint, I expect,
and without having to use any explicit constraint.

> I see the need to performance tune Referential Integrity more
> directly.
>
>

Sure. Go for it. As far as enums go, the only cases I can think of where
that will have any application are:
. you don't use enums because you want strictly vanilla SQL, or
. you don't use enums because you want to be able to alter the set of
allowed values arbitrarily.

That still leaves lots of applications (e.g. those I work on in my day
job) that will benefit from enums.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2006-11-21 14:40:02 Re: XA support (distributed transactions)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-11-21 14:04:58 Re: [PATCHES] WIP 2 interpreters for plperl