On 10/25/2010 02:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"David E. Wheeler"<da...@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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
