Re: Current enums patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a specific reason for
>>> pg_enum.enumname to be type name and not type text?
>>>
>
>
>> IIRC at one stage Tom wanted to try to make these identifiers, but that
>> was quickly abandoned. This might be a hangover from that.
>>
>
> Actually I think I see the reason: it's a bit of a pain in the neck to
> use the syscache mechanism with text-type lookup keys.  I'm not 100%
> convinced that we really need to have syscaches on pg_enum, but if those
> stay then it's probably not worth the trouble to avoid the limitation.
>
>
>

That rings a faint bell.

If we don't have syscaches on pg_enum won't enum i/o get more expensive?

cheers

andrew