| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Current enums patch |
| Date: | 2007-04-02 19:31:22 |
| Message-ID: | 46115A0A.8050300@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> While all this reasoning is perfectly OK on its own terms, it ignores
>> the precedents of SQL identifier handling. Maybe we should revisit the
>> question of whether the labels are identifiers.
>
> Implying that they shouldn't be quoted like text (or should be
> double-quoted if required)? Originally when discussing the patch I
> thought that this was a good idea, but now I'm not so sure. How does
> one set an enum value from e.g. a JDBC PreparedStatement in that
> scenario?
>
>
Heh ... I read the statement the other way, i.e. maybe we should treat
them entirely as strings with no length limitation. The trouble is they
are half identifiers and half not right now. We certainly can't treat
them fully as identifiers unless I'm right off course - the ambiguities
would be horrendous.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-02 19:32:15 | Re: Blocked post |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-02 19:24:46 | Re: Current enums patch |