Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Dunstan
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date
Msg-id 45889950.5000603@tomd.cc
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> An objection to enums on the ground that foreign keys can accomplish the
> same thing could be extended to object to any data type with a finite
> domain.

Exactly. The extreme case is the boolean type, which could easily be
represented by a two-value enum. Or, if you were feeling masochistic, a
FK to a separate table. Which is easier?

People regularly do stuff like having domains over finite text values,
or having a FK to a separate (static) table, or using some sort of EAV.
Enums are type-safe, easily ordered, relatively efficient and don't
leave zillions of little static tables all over the place, a combination
of attributes that none of the alternative solutions in this space present.

Cheers

Tom


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Next
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source