| From: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2005-07-26 20:56:11 |
| Message-ID: | 42E6A36B.6030001@empires.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Chris Travers wrote:
> The problem with enums is that although they are handy they are never
> elegant re: database design. Addign enum tables is the only way yo
> maintain sanity in this eent that I can think of.
>
I mostly agree, but I don't think we can dismiss enum completely. After
all, boolean is pretty much enum(false,true), and nobody would advocate
removing that type.
We could probably think of a few other cases, but it's often used
inappropriately. Just the fact that we're talking about it now surprises
me; I had no idea that many people actually used enum. The thought of
using it never crossed my mind in a real situation.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-07-26 21:05:17 | Re: ENUM type |
| Previous Message | Chris Travers | 2005-07-26 20:53:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-26 21:01:11 | Re: For review: Server instrumentation patch |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-07-26 20:53:58 | Re: VACUUM DATABASE |