From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
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 01:30:23 |
Message-ID: | 4B32C42F.3060601@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
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.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-12-24 01:33:38 | Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations |
Previous Message | Greg Williamson | 2009-12-23 23:59:07 | Re: About the CREATE TABLE LIKE indexes vs constraints issue |