Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > 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.
I had no idea we exposed that API. > 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. OK, I get the point. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
