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: 2017-09-25 14:42:59
Message-ID: 27064.1506350579@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:
> On 09/25/2017 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh ... I did not think we were on the same page, because your patch
>> didn't include removal of the same-transaction heuristic. It'd be
>> sensible to do that as a separate patch, though, to make it easier
>> to put back if we decide we do want it.

> I understood you to say that the blacklist patch was all we needed to do
> for v10. That's my position, i.e. I think we can live with the heuristic
> test for now if the blacklist patch is applied. Maybe we need to
> document that the heuristic test can generate some false negatives when
> testing for a type that is created in the current transaction.

No, as I said upthread, I want the heuristic out of there. I think the
blacklist idea covers enough use-cases that we possibly don't need the
same-transaction test at all. Furthermore I'm doubtful that the heuristic
form of the same-transaction test is adequate to satisfy the use-cases
that the blacklist test doesn't cover. So I think we should remove that
test and see whether we get any complaints, and if so what the details of
the real-world use-cases look like.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2017-09-25 14:55:58 Re: [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2017-09-25 14:24:53 Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-09-25 14:45:28 Re: bgw_type (was Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-09-25 14:32:25 Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations