Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Is there a specific reason for
>>> pg_enum.enumname to be type name and not type text?
>> IIRC at one stage Tom wanted to try to make these identifiers, but that
>> was quickly abandoned. This might be a hangover from that.
> Actually I think I see the reason: it's a bit of a pain in the neck to
> use the syscache mechanism with text-type lookup keys. I'm not 100%
> convinced that we really need to have syscaches on pg_enum, but if those
> stay then it's probably not worth the trouble to avoid the limitation.
That rings a faint bell.
If we don't have syscaches on pg_enum won't enum i/o get more expensive?
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-03-31 23:01:03|
|Subject: Re: COPY-able sql log outputs|
|Previous:||From: Henry B. Hotz||Date: 2007-03-31 22:41:23|
|Subject: Preliminary GSSAPI Patches|