Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Here's the current version of the enums patch.
>>>>
>
> [ sounds of reviewing... ]
(What are those? It's a bit hard to imagine you singing "doo di doo doo"
a la Homer while reviewing ....)
> Is there a specific reason for
> pg_enum.enumname to be type name and not type text? ISTM that type name
> wastes space (because most labels will probably be a lot shorter than 63
> bytes) and at the same time imposes an implementation restriction that
> we don't need to have. It would make sense if the enum labels were
> treated syntactically as SQL identifiers, but they're treated as
> strings. And there's no particular win to be had by having a
> fixed-length struct, since there's no more fields anyway.
>
IIRC at one stage Tom wanted to try to make these identifiers, but that
was quickly abandoned. This might be a hangover from that. If someone
wants to use an insanely long enum label I guess that's their lookout.
cheers
andrew
