| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Date: | 2010-11-12 22:19:57 |
| Message-ID: | B3D9A4CF-AC75-451E-8AC5-A767D4C22D23@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Well, you can rename an item today if you don't mind doing a direct
>>> UPDATE on pg_enum. I think that's probably sufficient if the demand
>>> only amounts to one or two requests a year. I'd say leave it off the
>>> TODO list till we see if there's more demand than that.
>
>> I'd say put it on and mark it with an [E]. We could use some more
>> [E]asy items for that list.
>
> We don't need to add marginally-useful features just because they're
> easy. If it doesn't have a real use-case, the incremental maintenance
> cost of more code is a good reason to reject it.
If we allow users to name objects, we ought to make every effort to also allow renaming them. In my mind, the only way renaming is too marginal to be useful is if the feature itself is too marginal to be useful.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-11-12 22:34:01 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-12 22:09:39 | 8.4-vintage problem in postmaster.c |