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

Re: Current enums patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>
Subject: Re: Current enums patch
Date: 2007-03-31 21:00:12
Message-ID: 9421.1175374812@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
>>> Here's the current version of the enums patch.

[ sounds of reviewing... ]  Is there a specific reason for
pg_enum.enumname to be type name and not type text?  ISTM that type name
wastes space (because most labels will probably be a lot shorter than 63
bytes) and at the same time imposes an implementation restriction that
we don't need to have.  It would make sense if the enum labels were
treated syntactically as SQL identifiers, but they're treated as
strings.  And there's no particular win to be had by having a
fixed-length struct, since there's no more fields anyway.

Unless someone objects, I'll change this and also revert to the
enumlabel name that seems to have been used originally (it was still
used in the docs).  It seems more readable somehow (I guess it's the
lack of either ascenders or descenders in "enumname").

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-03-31 21:55:43
Subject: Re: Current enums patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-03-31 19:17:47
Subject: Re: Current enums patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group