From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jasen Betts <jasen(at)xnet(dot)co(dot)nz> |
Cc: | Tim Uckun <timuckun(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using varchar primary keys. |
Date: | 2013-04-01 13:35:13 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0ymCYXay0AJ1mSLZ8+wK5eu29hVq5dDQy+0zP4NMpU3Lg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Jasen Betts <jasen(at)xnet(dot)co(dot)nz> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 07:08:15PM +1300, Tim Uckun wrote:
>> >
>> > how about using an enum instead of this table?
>> >
>> >
>> That's an interesting idea. Are enums mutable?
>
>
> since 9.1 you can add values.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-altertype.html
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think enums are designed to act
as a primary key except in cases where the data is basically static
and is relatively small. For starters, any manipulation of the enum
requires a lock.
enums can be a real life saver when you need custom ordering built
into a string, especially if that ordering is floated over a composite
index.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-04-01 14:04:48 | Re: Current Schema for Functions called within other Functions |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2013-04-01 13:14:59 | Re: Problem with pg_basebackup and streaming replication. (9.2.3 / win64) |