Re: Enums patch v2

Tom Dunstan wrote:
> Here is an updated version of the enums patch. It has been brought up to
> date and applies against current CVS HEAD. The original email is at [1],
> and describes the implementation.

I'm sorry I missed the original discussions, but I have to ask: Why do
we want enums in core? The only potential advantage I can see over using
a look-up table and FK references is performance. And I'd rather spend
time improving the performance of FK checks than add extra machinery to
do the same thing in a different way.

Ignoring my general dislike of enums, I have a few issues with the patch
as it is:

1. What's the point of having comparison operators for enums? For most
use cases, there's no natural ordering of enum values.

2. The comparison routine compares oids, right? If the oids wrap around
when the enum values are created, the ordering isn't what the user expects.

3. 4 bytes per value is wasteful if you're storing simple status codes
etc. Especially if you're doing this for performance, let's do no harm
by wasting space. One byte seems enough for the typical use cases. I'd
even argue that having a high upper limit on the number of enum values
encourages misuse of the feature.

--
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com