Re: WIP: extensible enums

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 22:34:01
Message-ID: 1289601241.4869.16.camel@jd-desktop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:20 -0500, Tom Lane 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.

Perhaps we should remove the ability to rename tables and databases too.
It would certainly lighten the code path.

JD

>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2010-11-12 22:34:51 Re: B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-11-12 22:19:57 Re: WIP: extensible enums