Tom Lane wrote:
> Unless someone objects, I'll change this and also revert to the
> enumlabel name that seems to have been used originally (it was still
> used in the docs). It seems more readable somehow (I guess it's the
> lack of either ascenders or descenders in "enumname").
The name/text thing is discussed downthread. I actually started out
calling the field the name and changed it to the label, but perhaps I
only did that in the docs. It was probably while I was writing the docs
that I realized that name could refer to the enum type name or the value
name, which was confusing, but "value name" was kinda cumbersome, hence
"label". Change it over with my blessing.
Cheers
Tom