Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: add label to enum syntax

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: add label to enum syntax
Date: 2010-10-25 19:46:19
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/25/2010 02:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>  wrote:
>> "David E. Wheeler"<david(at)kineticode(dot)com>  writes:
>>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> I can see the point of that, but I don't find LABEL to be a particularly
>>>> great name for the elements of an enum type, and so I'm not in favor of
>>>> institutionalizing that name in the syntax.  How about ADD VALUE?
>>> So the docs have called them "labels" for quite some time.
>> There are some places in the docs that use that term, but there are
>> others that don't.  In any case, using the term in the SQL syntax
>> casts it in stone, not silly putty ...
> Personally, I prefer LABEL.  But I could live with VALUE.

That's roughly my position. It would be consistent with the name we use 
in the catalogs, as well as what's in the docs. I don't think it's as 
opaque as Tom seems to suggest. An enum is pretty much an ordered set of 
labels. But I could certainly live with VALUE if that's the consensus.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alan HodgsonDate: 2010-10-25 19:51:41
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Previous:From: Anders SteinleinDate: 2010-10-25 19:46:02
Subject: Bug: citext not working in non-public schema

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2016 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group