Re: WIP: extensible enums

"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On Mon, August 23, 2010 11:49 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> What do you need AFTER for?  Seems to me that BEFORE should be enough.
>> (You already have the unadorned syntax for adding an item after the last
>> one, which is the corner case that BEFORE alone doesn't cover).

> You're right. Strictly speaking we don't need it. But it doesn't hurt much
> to provide it for a degree of symmetry.

I'm with Alvaro: drop the AFTER variant.  It provides more than one way
to do the same thing, which isn't that exciting, and it's also going to
make it harder to document the performance issues.  Without that, you
can just say "ADD BEFORE will make the enum slower, but plain ADD won't"
(ignoring the issue of OID wraparound, which'll confuse matters in any
case).
        regards, tom lane