Re: WIP: extensible enums
От | Joseph Adams |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTim5sOrtq9mxHDEqmX-Ez-Vgx+ssxdPf-ymRC2G1@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: extensible enums (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: extensible enums
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "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). But what if you want to insert an OID at the end? You can't do it if all you've got is BEFORE: CREATE TYPE colors AS ENUM ('red', 'green', 'blue'); If I want it to become ('red', 'green', 'blue', 'orange'), what am I to do?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: