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

Re: extensible enum types

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: extensible enum types
Date: 2010-06-19 20:55:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> This is very similar to Andrew's original suggestion of splitting 32 
> bits into 16+16, but managed by the machine hence no complicated 
> comparison algos needed on our part. Also, since this is all 
> transparent to the SQL interface, our dump-reload cycle or Slony 
> replication, etc. should not be affected either.

It would break the on-disk representation, though. That's not something 
we want to do any more if it can possibly be avoided. We want to keep 
pg_upgrade working.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2010-06-19 21:11:43
Subject: Re: extensible enum types
Previous:From: Gurjeet SinghDate: 2010-06-19 20:14:29
Subject: Re: extensible enum types

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