Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I wasn't aware enum ordering is something we tried to maintain.
> > One issue is that we are not supporting the addition of enum values even
> > for people who don't care about the ordering of enums (which I bet might
> > be the majority.)
> >
>
> The ordering of enums is defined and to be relied on and I think it's
> absolutely unacceptable not to be able to rely on the ordering.
>
> We should never be in a position where the values returned by
> enum_first(), enum_range() etc. are not completely deterministic.
I had no idea we exposed that API.
> Part of the original motivation for implementing enums was precisely so
> that they would sort in the defined order rather than in lexicographical
> order. It's a fundamental part of the type and not an optional feature.
> The idea of potentially breaking it makes no more sense than allowing
> for a non-deterministic ordering of integers.
OK, I get the point.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +