Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: balazs(at)obiserver(dot)hu, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
Date: 2017-09-24 20:37:30
Message-ID: 18127.1506285450@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> OK, here's the finished patch. It has a pretty small footprint all
> things considered, and I think it guarantees that nothing that could be
> done in this area in 9.6 will be forbidden. That's probably enough to
> get us to 10 without having to revert the whole thing, ISTM, and we can
> leave any further refinement to the next release.

I think this could do with some more work on the comments and test cases,
but it's basically sound.

What we still need to debate is whether to remove the heuristic
type-is-from-same-transaction test, making the user-visible behavior
simply "you must commit an ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE before you can use the
new value". I'm kind of inclined to do so; the fuzzy (and inadequately
documented) behavior we'll have if we keep it doesn't seem very nice to
me.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message yxq 2017-09-24 20:54:50 Re: BUG #14785: Logical replication does not work after adding a column. Bug?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2017-09-24 20:19:37 Re: [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2017-09-24 21:08:02 Re: PATCH : Generational memory allocator (was PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators)
Previous Message Erik Rijkers 2017-09-24 20:36:59 comments improvements