On Nov 14, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It's fairly unscientific and inconclusive, and the discussion seems to have
> died. I think since Tom and I did most of the work on this our voices should
> count a little louder :-) , so I'm going to go with his suggestion of VALUE,
> unless
On 10/29/2010 01:47 AM, Pavel Golub wrote:
Hello, Alvaro.
You wrote:
AH> Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of jue oct 28 07:50:24 -0300 2010:
Forgot link to poll:
http://pgolub.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/poll-alter-type-enumtype-add-what-newlabel/
AH> Hah, there are 17 votes as of right
Hello, Alvaro.
You wrote:
AH> Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of jue oct 28 07:50:24 -0300 2010:
>> Forgot link to poll:
>> http://pgolub.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/poll-alter-type-enumtype-add-what-newlabel/
AH> Hah, there are 17 votes as of right now, no option is below 23% and no
AH> optio
Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of jue oct 28 07:50:24 -0300 2010:
> Forgot link to poll:
> http://pgolub.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/poll-alter-type-enumtype-add-what-newlabel/
Hah, there are 17 votes as of right now, no option is below 23% and no
option is above 29%.
--
Álvaro Herrera
The P
Hello, Andrew.
You wrote:
AD> It occurred to me in the dead of the night that instead of:
AD> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD 'newlabel'
AD> it might be better to have:
AD> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD LABEL 'newlabel'
AD> That way if we later wanted to support some other sort of ADD operation
Hello, Andrew.
You wrote:
AD> It occurred to me in the dead of the night that instead of:
AD> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD 'newlabel'
AD> it might be better to have:
AD> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD LABEL 'newlabel'
AD> That way if we later wanted to support some other sort of ADD operation
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié oct 27 11:18:44 -0300 2010:
> The reason I chose LABEL was that it's consistent with what we have used
> elsewhere, both in the docs and the catalog. But I'm not strongly wedded
> to it. If it's a choice between ELEMENT and VALUE, I too prefer VALUE
On 10/27/2010 10:00 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message:
Well ELEMENT is a reserved keyword in SQL:2008, to support
multisets, so if we ever supported that feature...
Hah!
Well, here's a patch for LABEL in any case. If we're going to
have
On 10/26/2010 09:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
But ... having said all that, I have to agree that ELEMENT seems
preferable to LABEL if we ignore micro-considerations of parser
efficiency --- I still think LABEL is a pretty poor choice of word
here. Personally I'd still take VALUE as being my first
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message:
>> Well ELEMENT is a reserved keyword in SQL:2008, to support
>> multisets, so if we ever supported that feature...
>
> Hah!
>
> Well, here's a patch for LABEL in any case. If we're going to
> have to reserve ELEMENT in the future
On 27 October 2010 02:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of mar oct 26 15:46:56 -0300 2010:
>>> Well ELEMENT is a reserved keyword in SQL:2008, to support multisets,
>>> so if we ever supported that feature...
>
>> Hah!
>
> Hmmm ... I dug through
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of mar oct 26 15:46:56 -0300 2010:
>> Well ELEMENT is a reserved keyword in SQL:2008, to support multisets,
>> so if we ever supported that feature...
> Hah!
Hmmm ... I dug through SQL:2008, and so far as I can find, the only use
of E
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of mar oct 26 15:46:56 -0300 2010:
> On 26 October 2010 17:04, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >>> Notwithstanding the above, I don't think ELEMENT would be a very bad
> >>> choice.
> >>
> >> I still think we s
On 26 October 2010 17:04, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>> Notwithstanding the above, I don't think ELEMENT would be a very bad choice.
>>
>> I still think we should just go for LABEL and be done with it. But
>> y'all can ignore me if you want...
>
>
On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Notwithstanding the above, I don't think ELEMENT would be a very bad choice.
>
> I still think we should just go for LABEL and be done with it. But
> y'all can ignore me if you want...
+1
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar oct 26 10:54:59 -0300 2010:
>> Unlike the other suggestions, ELEMENT is not currently a keyword. That
>> doesn't rule it out entirely, but it's a factor worth consideration.
> It can be added as an unreserved keyword, as in t
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar oct 26 10:54:59 -0300 2010:
> On 10/26/2010 03:02 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > In mathematics (and I think also computer science), the term
> > conventionally used the refer to the things in an enumeration is
> > "element", so how about ADD ELEMENT?
>
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/26/2010 03:02 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>
>> In mathematics (and I think also computer science), the term
>> conventionally used the refer to the things in an enumeration is
>> "element", so how about ADD ELEMENT?
>
> Unlike the oth
On 10/26/2010 03:02 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
In mathematics (and I think also computer science), the term
conventionally used the refer to the things in an enumeration is
"element", so how about ADD ELEMENT?
Unlike the other suggestions, ELEMENT is not currently a keyword. That
doesn't rule i
On 25 October 2010 21:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> LABEL is already an unreserved keyword, and I'm pretty sure that's all
>> we'll need.
>
> The only reason it's a keyword is the SECURITY LABEL patch that went
> in a month or so ago; which is syntax that might still be thought
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> LABEL is already an unreserved keyword, and I'm pretty sure that's all
> we'll need.
The only reason it's a keyword is the SECURITY LABEL patch that went
in a month or so ago; which is syntax that might still be thought
better of before it gets to a release.
But I seem
On 10/25/2010 04:03 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/10/25 Andrew Dunstan:
On 10/25/2010 02:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
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 doc
2010/10/25 Andrew Dunstan :
>
>
> On 10/25/2010 02:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> "David E. Wheeler" 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
>>
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Personally, I prefer LABEL. But I could live with VALUE.
>
> That's roughly my position.
LABEL would seem more natural to me. I would tend to think of the
VALUE as the hidden number which determines the order.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql
On 10/25/2010 02:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"David E. Wheeler" 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
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" 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
>>> institutional
"David E. Wheeler" 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?
>
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?
From the fine manual:
> The secon
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> It occurred to me in the dead of the night that instead of:
> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD 'newlabel'
> it might be better to have:
> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD LABEL 'newlabel'
> That way if we later wanted to support some other sort of ADD operation
> on types we would
On mån, 2010-10-25 at 11:48 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It occurred to me in the dead of the night that instead of:
>
> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD 'newlabel'
>
>
> it might be better to have:
>
> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD LABEL 'newlabel'
That had occurred to me as well. Go for it.
-
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/10/25 Andrew Dunstan :
>>
>> It occurred to me in the dead of the night that instead of:
>>
>> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD 'newlabel'
>>
>>
>> it might be better to have:
>>
>> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD LABEL 'newlabel'
>
> +1
+1.
--
R
2010/10/25 Andrew Dunstan :
>
> It occurred to me in the dead of the night that instead of:
>
> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD 'newlabel'
>
>
> it might be better to have:
>
> ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD LABEL 'newlabel'
+1
Regards
Pavel
>
>
> That way if we later wanted to support some other sort of A
It occurred to me in the dead of the night that instead of:
ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD 'newlabel'
it might be better to have:
ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD LABEL 'newlabel'
That way if we later wanted to support some other sort of ADD operation
on types we would be able to more easily. LABEL
33 matches
Mail list logo
