From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations |
Date: | 2009-12-24 01:33:38 |
Message-ID: | 200912240133.nBO1XcS24885@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adriano Lange | 2009-12-24 02:00:16 | Re: join ordering via Simulated Annealing |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-12-24 01:30:23 | Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations |