Re: extensible enum types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: extensible enum types
Date
Msg-id 4C1BA5DE.2090501@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: extensible enum types  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
Responses Re: extensible enum types  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: extensible enum types  (Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>)
List 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
labelsrepresented by n and n+1, we can't add a label between them without rewriting the tables that use the type,
whetherit'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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: extensible enum types
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>