From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Enum proposal / design |
Date: | 2006-08-17 09:07:18 |
Message-ID: | 87ejvfybll.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Dunstan" <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> writes:
> I didn't really want to go down that path in this thread
> since it would turn what should be a fairly non-intrusive
> patch to add a new type into a big thing, and I really just
> wanted to get enums in. :) I tend to think of it the other
> way around from how you put it: if a general solution to
> that problem can be found which does fall afoul of the
> security issues that were the reason for multi-argument
> output functions to be killed off in the first place, then
> great, and enums can directly benefit.
True. Perhaps it's reasonable to use a 8-byte representation in the name of
getting the user-visible feature in. Knowing that the fundamental problem will
eventually be solved and the implementation can eventually be improved
transparently to use 1 to 4 byte storage.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2006-08-17 10:34:26 | Re: An Idea for planner hints |
Previous Message | Böszörményi Zoltán | 2006-08-17 09:01:40 | Question about GENERATED/IDENTITY |