| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
| Subject: | Re: Enums patch v2 |
| Date: | 2006-12-19 09:58:48 |
| Message-ID: | 200612191058.49304.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I'm sorry I missed the original discussions, but I have to ask: Why
> do we want enums in core? The only potential advantage I can see over
> using a look-up table and FK references is performance.
The difference is that foreign-key-referenced data is part of your data
whereas enums would be part of the type system used to model the data.
An objection to enums on the ground that foreign keys can accomplish the
same thing could be extended to object to any data type with a finite
domain.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-12-19 11:25:27 | Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum |
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-12-19 09:31:27 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-12-19 14:34:27 | Re: Enums patch v2 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-12-19 09:48:03 | Re: Updated XML patch |