Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The reason I don't want to do it that way is that then you need two
> >> ugly kluges in the backend, not just one. With the zero-and-add-one
> >> approach there is no need to have a "next enum oid" variable at all.
>
> > Uh, I still need that variable because that is how we are going to set
> > the oid in EnumValuesCreate(), unless we want to add dummy oid-value
> > arguments to that function for use only by the binary upgrade
> > server-side function.
>
> Please go back and re-read what I suggested: you need a function along
> the lines of
> add_enum_member(enum-type, 'value name', value-oid)
> and then there's no need for any saved state. So what if it has a
> different signature from the other pg_migrator special functions?
> It's not doing the same thing.

OK, right, I can get rid of the enum function that just sets the next
oid value if I do all the enum value creation via function calls. I
will work in that direction then.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +