| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add label to enum syntax |
| Date: | 2010-10-25 20:14:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4CC5E51A.2010000@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/25/2010 04:03 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/10/25 Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>>
>> On 10/25/2010 02:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally, I prefer LABEL. But I could live with VALUE.
>> That's roughly my position. It would be consistent with the name we use in
>> the catalogs, as well as what's in the docs. I don't think it's as opaque as
>> Tom seems to suggest. An enum is pretty much an ordered set of labels. But I
>> could certainly live with VALUE if that's the consensus.
> I agree with you. There are some better keywords than VALUE - maybe
> ELEMENT or just LABEL. I understand if there must be a reserved
> keyword - but if not I prefer LABEL too.
>
LABEL is already an unreserved keyword, and I'm pretty sure that's all
we'll need.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-25 20:17:16 | Re: ask for review of MERGE |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-10-25 20:10:48 | Re: ask for review of MERGE |