| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add label to enum syntax |
| Date: | 2010-10-25 18:51:42 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikaeB0=ML8N7bqmZDHpZtLDaHnhniWT=Z9sFEJu@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-10-25 18:51:49 | Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types |
| Previous Message | Steve Singer | 2010-10-25 18:46:46 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |