Re: Enum proposal / design

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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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