From: | "Tom Dunstan" <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Enum proposal / design |
Date: | 2006-08-17 02:14:20 |
Message-ID: | 44e3d0fc.26.5029.8318@internode.on.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> If you're gonna fix it at 4 bytes, then I strongly suggest
> that the value identifiers actually be OIDs assigned
> through the standard OID-generating mechanism, and that
> the pg_enum table have the structure
...
> The advantage of doing this is that you can use the
> existing, well debugged, normally-quite-fast mechanisms
> for generating new unique value identifiers. Rather than
> consing up your own slow full-table-scan mechanism as
> envisioned in the original proposal.
Yeah, I was never all that happy with that anyway, and
figured for the unique value thingy that we could either use
oids or set up a new sequence, but oids sounded like
significantly less work.
Cheers
Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-08-17 02:33:50 | Re: Adjust autovacuum naptime automatically |
Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-08-17 01:45:00 | Adjust autovacuum naptime automatically |