| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add label to enum syntax |
| Date: | 2010-10-27 14:18:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4CC834C4.2020105@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/26/2010 09:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> But ... having said all that, I have to agree that ELEMENT seems
> preferable to LABEL if we ignore micro-considerations of parser
> efficiency --- I still think LABEL is a pretty poor choice of word
> here. Personally I'd still take VALUE as being my first choice though.
Speculation about what the SQL standards might contain at some stage if
they ever supported enums seems to be drawing a bit of a long bow, so
I'm not terribly convinced by that line of reasoning.
The reason I chose LABEL was that it's consistent with what we have used
elsewhere, both in the docs and the catalog. But I'm not strongly wedded
to it. If it's a choice between ELEMENT and VALUE, I too prefer VALUE at
it seems likelier to convey the sense of what we're doing to a naive user.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-10-27 14:22:43 | Re: Re: ECPG dynamic cursor fix for UPDATE/DELETE ... WHERE CURRENT OF :curname |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-27 14:00:55 | Re: add label to enum syntax |