On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > Well, we could use an optional "details" string for that. If not, we > are still using the magic-string approach, which I thought we didn't > like.
No, we're not using magic strings, we're using an enum --- maybe not an officially declared enum type, but it's a column with a predetermined set of possible values. It would be a magic string if it were still in the "query" field and thus confusable with user-written queries.
