| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Matthias Kurz <m(dot)kurz(at)irregular(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Alter or rename enum value |
| Date: | 2016-03-09 17:13:32 |
| Message-ID: | 28167.1457543612@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 03/09/2016 11:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have a vague recollection that we discussed this at the time the enum
>> stuff went in, and there are concurrency issues? Don't recall details
>> though.
> Rings a vague bell, but should it be any worse than adding new labels?
I think what I was recalling is the hazards discussed in the comments for
RenumberEnumType. However, the problem there is that a backend could make
inconsistent ordering decisions due to seeing two different pg_enum rows
under different snapshots. Updating a single row to change its name
doesn't seem to have a comparable hazard, and it wouldn't affect ordering
anyway. So it's probably no worse than any other object-rename situation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-09 17:16:59 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-03-09 17:07:55 | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |