Josh Berkus wrote: > On 8/23/10 12:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > >> I really don't see the value in making a command substantially less > >> intuitive in order to avoid a single keyword, unless it affects areas of > >> Postgres outside of this particular command. > > > > It's the three variants to do two things that I find unintuitive. > > Actually, it's 3 different things: > > 1. BEFORE adds a value before the value cited. > 2. AFTER adds a value after the value cited. > 3. unqualified adds a value at the end. > > The fact that AFTER allows you to add a value at the end is > circumstantial overlap. While executing an AFTER, you wouldn't *know* > that you were adding it to the end, necessarily. > > The other reason to have AFTER is that, in scripts, the user may not > have the before value handy due to context (i.e. dynamically building an > enum). > > Anyway, this'll still be useful with BEFORE only. I'm just convinced > that we'll end up adding AFTER in 9.2 or 9.3 after we get a bunch of > user complaints and questions. So why not add it now?
CREATE ENUM in PG 9.0 allows you to create an enum with no columns, e.g.: test=> CREATE TYPE etest AS ENUM (); CREATE TYPE so I think we have to have the ability add an enum without a before/after. This ability was added for pg_upgrade. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers