Re: WIP: extensible enums

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: extensible enums
Date: 2010-10-23 23:59:06
Message-ID: 2DE02FF5-E726-405E-99E5-D36FC28E065B@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Oct 23, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I still prefer the idea of not changing rows once they're
> inserted, though

Me too. But I really dislike the idea of having a failure mode where we can't insert for no reason that the user can understand. So I'm trying to think of a better option.

Why would you need to lock out type comparisons? Locking out concurrent DDL seems sufficient.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-24 00:11:11 Re: WIP: extensible enums
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-23 23:52:22 Re: WIP: extensible enums