Re: extensible enum types

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
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 16:59:10
Message-ID: 4C1BA5DE.2090501@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>> I'd be perfectly happy to hear a reasonable alternative. Assuming we use some integer representation, given two labels represented by n and n+1, we can't add a label between them without rewriting the tables that use the type, whether it's my representation scheme or some other. Maybe we could have a FORCE option which would rewrite if necessary.
>>
>
> People would likely always use it.
>
> Why not use a decimal number?
>
>
>

You are just bumping up the storage cost. Part of the attraction of
enums is their efficiency.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2010-06-18 17:03:38 Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-06-18 16:56:14 Re: extensible enum types