From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, Greg Mitchell <gmitchell(at)atdesk(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Custom Data Type Question |
Date: | 2006-11-21 14:29:38 |
Message-ID: | 45630D52.5000301@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 02:51 +0000, Tom Dunstan wrote:
>
> In the long run, as currently envisaged, enums don't do all that I would
> like.
In a sense they do more than you want. They will provide the ability to
set values much faster than anything using an FK constraint, I expect,
and without having to use any explicit constraint.
> I see the need to performance tune Referential Integrity more
> directly.
>
>
Sure. Go for it. As far as enums go, the only cases I can think of where
that will have any application are:
. you don't use enums because you want strictly vanilla SQL, or
. you don't use enums because you want to be able to alter the set of
allowed values arbitrarily.
That still leaves lots of applications (e.g. those I work on in my day
job) that will benefit from enums.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-11-21 14:40:02 | Re: XA support (distributed transactions) |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-11-21 14:04:58 | Re: [PATCHES] WIP 2 interpreters for plperl |