| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Dean Rasheed" <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: add label to enum syntax |
| Date: | 2010-10-27 14:00:55 |
| Message-ID: | 4CC7EA470200002500036E71@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message:
>> Well ELEMENT is a reserved keyword in SQL:2008, to support
>> multisets, so if we ever supported that feature...
>
> Hah!
>
> Well, here's a patch for LABEL in any case. If we're going to
> have to reserve ELEMENT in the future then there doesn't seem to
> be much point in not choosing that one though.
FWIW, I like ELEMENT better than LABEL. The reason I don't like
VALUE is that you are specifying the logical *name* of the entry,
and it seems clumsy not to have a convenient word for the value that
the name maps to, internally. You're actually adding the name and
assigning it a value, which corresponds well to ELEMENT.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-27 14:18:44 | Re: add label to enum syntax |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-10-27 11:05:44 | Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |