Bruce Momjian wrote:
I wasn't aware enum ordering is something we tried to maintain. One issue is that we are not supporting the addition of enum values even for people who don't care about the ordering of enums (which I bet might be the majority.)
The ordering of enums is defined and to be relied on and I think it's absolutely unacceptable not to be able to rely on the ordering.
We should never be in a position where the values returned by enum_first(), enum_range() etc. are not completely deterministic.
Part of the original motivation for implementing enums was precisely so that they would sort in the defined order rather than in lexicographical order. It's a fundamental part of the type and not an optional feature. The idea of potentially breaking it makes no more sense than allowing for a non-deterministic ordering of integers.
cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
