| From: | Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Enums patch v2 |
| Date: | 2006-12-20 02:00:48 |
| Message-ID: | 45889950.5000603@tomd.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
Exactly. The extreme case is the boolean type, which could easily be
represented by a two-value enum. Or, if you were feeling masochistic, a
FK to a separate table. Which is easier?
People regularly do stuff like having domains over finite text values,
or having a FK to a separate (static) table, or using some sort of EAV.
Enums are type-safe, easily ordered, relatively efficient and don't
leave zillions of little static tables all over the place, a combination
of attributes that none of the alternative solutions in this space present.
Cheers
Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Glen Parker | 2006-12-20 02:16:44 | Re: Autovacuum Improvements |
| Previous Message | Matthew O'Connor | 2006-12-20 01:52:33 | Re: Autovacuum Improvements |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-12-20 03:19:51 | Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Dunstan | 2006-12-20 01:39:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Enums patch v2 |