On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:13:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Tom Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I thought the runtime one was kinda cute, actually, but you would have > > to have duplicate functions for the differently sized types, eg. > > enum1_out, enum2_out etc since otherwise you wouldn't know what sized > > parameter you were just handed. > > I'm not sure that that matters really. What you are actually going to > get handed is a Datum that IIRC is right-justified and zero-padded, so > very probably one function would work for all stored widths. The bigger > issue I think is the surprise factor if a column gets wider over a dump > and reload.
Actually, if we're going to support variable-width enums, I think it makes the most sense to just expose that to the user, since they'll be able to have a chance of figuring out which size would make the most sense for a given table (unless you want to add logic to look at the table's layout...) If we wanted to provide an idiot-proof version that was "unsized", we could just make that an alias for a 4 or 8 byte enum. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
