On 10/25/2010 02:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> "David E. Wheeler"<david@kineticode.com> 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?
>>> So the docs have called them "labels" for quite some time.
>> There are some places in the docs that use that term, but there are
>> others that don't. In any case, using the term in the SQL syntax
>> casts it in stone, not silly putty ...
> 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 docs. I don't think it's as
opaque as Tom seems to suggest. An enum is pretty much an ordered set of
labels. But I could certainly live with VALUE if that's the consensus.
cheers
andrew