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
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? |
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 |