Re: add label to enum syntax
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-10-25T19:46:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 10/25/2010 02:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> "David E. Wheeler"<david@kineticode.com> writes: >>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> I can see the point of that, but I don't find LABEL to be a particularly >>>> great name for the elements of an enum type, and so I'm not in favor of >>>> institutionalizing that name in the syntax. How about ADD VALUE? >>> So the docs have called them "labels" for quite some time. >> There are some places in the docs that use that term, but there are >> others that don't. In any case, using the term in the SQL syntax >> casts it in stone, not silly putty ... > Personally, I prefer LABEL. But I could live with VALUE. That's roughly my position. It would be consistent with the name we use in the catalogs, as well as what's in the docs. I don't think it's as opaque as Tom seems to suggest. An enum is pretty much an ordered set of labels. But I could certainly live with VALUE if that's the consensus. cheers andrew