| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2010-10-26 18:46:56 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimOn0FV3syt23JMcCMOHJQ26CTvb67LHut-CjLb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 October 2010 17:04, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>> Notwithstanding the above, I don't think ELEMENT would be a very bad choice.
>>
>> I still think we should just go for LABEL and be done with it. But
>> y'all can ignore me if you want...
>
> +1
>
Well ELEMENT is a reserved keyword in SQL:2008, to support multisets,
so if we ever supported that feature...
But I don't feel strongly about this. I think the overall consensus so
far is in favour of LABEL.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-10-26 18:53:27 | Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-10-26 18:31:45 | EOCF |