Tom Lane wrote:
Here's the current version of the enums patch.

[ sounds of reviewing... ]

(What are those? It's a bit hard to imagine you singing "doo di doo doo" a la Homer while reviewing ....)

Is there a specific reason for
pg_enum.enumname to be type name and not type text?  ISTM that type name
wastes space (because most labels will probably be a lot shorter than 63
bytes) and at the same time imposes an implementation restriction that
we don't need to have.  It would make sense if the enum labels were
treated syntactically as SQL identifiers, but they're treated as
strings.  And there's no particular win to be had by having a
fixed-length struct, since there's no more fields anyway.

IIRC at one stage Tom wanted to try to make these identifiers, but that was quickly abandoned. This might be a hangover from that. If someone wants to use an insanely long enum label I guess that's their lookout.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to