From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
Date: | 2010-10-24 19:33:42 |
Message-ID: | 15783.1287948822@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The point with an OID array is that you wouldn't need to store the
> enumsortorder values at all. The sort order would just be the index of
> the OID in the array. So the comparison code would read the OID array,
> traverse it building an array of enum_sort structs {oid, idx}, sort
> that by OID and cache it.
Hmm. But I guess we'd have to keep that array in the pg_type row,
and it'd be a huge PITA to work with at the SQL level. For instance,
psql and pg_dump can easily be adapted to use enumsortorder instead
of pg_enum.oid when they want to read out the labels in sorted order.
Doing the same with an array representation would be a very different
and much uglier query. I'm not eager to contort the catalog
representation that much.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-10-24 19:42:30 | typenameTypeId refactoring |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-24 19:28:03 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |