| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pulling data from a constraint def |
| Date: | 2010-05-14 04:32:12 |
| Message-ID: | 14366.1273811532@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, the inability to change the list of values is certainly an
>> unpleasant limitation, but is it so fatal that we should hide the
>> feature from people who could possibly use it? I think not.
> I happened upon this article relevant to the subject after googling a bit:
> http://www.justatheory.com/computers/databases/postgresql/enforce-set-of-values.html
> One of the comments suggests adding an entry to pg_enum to expand the
> legal values of an existing ENUM type. How safe is this idea?
The trick is for the OID of the added entry to sort in the position you
want it relative to the existing entries. If you don't care about that,
it's fine.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-05-14 04:36:44 | Re: Documentation availability as a single page of text |
| Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2010-05-14 04:00:57 | Re: Pulling data from a constraint def |