Re: Custom Data Type Question
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Custom Data Type Question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1164056275.3841.178.camel@silverbirch.site обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Custom Data Type Question (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 10:54 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Your enum sounds good, apart from the hardcoded/compilation thing. That > > is a data management nightmare AFAICS and so restricts the usefulness of > > the solution. > Simon, Tom Dunstan has submitted a patch for first class enum types that > do not have the compilation requirement - it's in the queue for 8.3. You > might want to review that. Well, the link to previous discussion ends: How about being more specific about what you are trying to accomplish? My thoughts: IMHO we need to optimise FOREIGN KEY checks. One way of doing that is by having enums that build the allowable values into the datatypes, I can think of others. An overall evaluation of the various approaches should be made before we settle on a specific one. My requirements list would be to allow FOREIGN KEYS to - be specified in SQL standard syntax - work as fast as CHECK (col IN (1,2,3)) - use less memory and completely avoid any spill-to-disk nightmare(*) - have the list of allowable values to be dynamically updateable, automatically as INSERTs/DELETEs occur on the referenced table - optimize without needing to change/reload database, just by adding minimum number of statements (zero being the best) (*) doesn't exist yet, thats why its a nightmare -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: