Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Current enums patch

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>
Subject: Re: Current enums patch
Date: 2007-03-31 21:55:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Here's the current version of the enums patch.
> [ sounds of reviewing... ]  

(What are those? It's a bit hard to imagine you singing "doo di doo doo" 
a la Homer while reviewing ....)

> Is there a specific reason for
> pg_enum.enumname to be type name and not type text?  ISTM that type name
> wastes space (because most labels will probably be a lot shorter than 63
> bytes) and at the same time imposes an implementation restriction that
> we don't need to have.  It would make sense if the enum labels were
> treated syntactically as SQL identifiers, but they're treated as
> strings.  And there's no particular win to be had by having a
> fixed-length struct, since there's no more fields anyway.

IIRC at one stage Tom wanted to try to make these identifiers, but that 
was quickly abandoned. This might be a hangover from that. If someone 
wants to use an insanely long enum label I guess that's their lookout.



In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-03-31 22:20:30
Subject: Re: Current enums patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-03-31 21:00:12
Subject: Re: Current enums patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group