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

In response to

• Re: Enums patch v2 at 2006-12-19 09:58:48 from Peter Eisentraut

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Glen Parker	Date: 2006-12-20 02:16:44
	Subject: Re: Autovacuum Improvements
Previous:	From: Matthew O'Connor	Date: 2006-12-20 01:52:33
	Subject: Re: Autovacuum Improvements

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: ITAGAKI Takahiro	Date: 2006-12-20 03:19:51
	Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch
Previous:	From: Tom Dunstan	Date: 2006-12-20 01:39:58
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enums patch v2