From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: extensible enum types |
Date: | 2010-06-18 19:18:51 |
Message-ID: | 16830.1276888731@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Insert a sort order column into pg_enum, and rearrange the values in
>> that whenever the user wants to add a new value in a particular place.
>> You give up cheap comparisons in exchange for flexibility. I think lots
>> of people would accept that tradeoff, especially if they could make it
>> per-datatype.
> But I'm not happy about giving up cheap comparison.
I don't think it would be all that bad. We could teach typcache.c to
cache the ordering data for any type that's in active use. It'd
certainly be a lot more expensive than OID comparison, but perhaps not
worse than NUMERIC comparisons.
> And how would it be per data-type?
Well, there'd be two kinds of enums, just as you were saying before.
I'm not sure how we'd expose that to users exactly, or whether there
could be provisions for switching a type's behavior after creation.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-18 19:37:13 | Re: About tapes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-18 19:16:28 | Re: About tapes |