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
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? |
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 |