Re: Confusion in section 8.7.3. Type Safety - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Dejan Spasic
Subject Re: Confusion in section 8.7.3. Type Safety
Date
Msg-id CA+S3bCr9prgoemFG7PWU_Jhz8iK+ecwxP7EY_7LRZwTTBYwztA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Confusion in section 8.7.3. Type Safety  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-docs
Yes, you are right. Thanks for the fast feedback.

BitWeise
Erkrather Straße 304
D-40231 Düsseldorf
Tel.: +49.151 2915 88 99

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 1:14 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 20:59, PG Doc comments form
<noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/datatype-enum.html
> Description:
>
> In section 8.7.3. Type Safety one can observe a the following statement in
> the examples.
>
> INSERT INTO holidays(num_weeks,happiness) VALUES (2, 'sad');
>
> This is somewhat confusing since type happiness doesn't contain 'sad'. I
> would suggest to remove the statement or to add an enum 'sad' in type
> happiness.

Thank you for the report. I think you might have missed that this
section is demonstrating that the statement does not work due to the
column's type not containing an enum value for 'sad' and that enum
values are specific to the particular enum, rather than global to all
enum types, as one *could* have assumed.

Your proposed modification would make the bogus INSERT statement work,
which would defeat the purpose of the section demonstrating that it
doesn't work.

David

pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Confusion in section 8.7.3. Type Safety
Next
From: Kirk Parker
Date:
Subject: DDL Partitionion Inheritance -- improved trigger function