From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 21:32:29 |
Message-ID: | 2770f70a-5977-3fa1-1065-11b4cc69f07f@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 09/24/2017 04:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
I'd rather not. The failure cases are going to be vanishingly small, I
suspect, and we've already discussed how we might improve that test. If
you want to put some weasel words in the docs that might be ok.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-24 23:06:49 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |
Previous Message | yxq | 2017-09-24 20:54:50 | Re: BUG #14785: Logical replication does not work after adding a column. Bug? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-09-24 22:11:39 | Re: Server crash due to SIGBUS(Bus Error) when trying to access the memory created using dsm_create(). |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-09-24 21:08:02 | Re: PATCH : Generational memory allocator (was PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators) |