From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Данил Столповских <danil(dot)stolpovskikh(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, o(dot)tselebrovskiy(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, d(dot)frolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
Subject: | Re: Allow deleting enumerated values from an existing enumerated data type |
Date: | 2023-10-02 17:49:22 |
Message-ID: | 507f399f-e21f-e20e-0090-710de187a662@postgresfriends.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/29/23 03:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
>> On 9/28/23 20:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We went through all these points years ago when the enum feature
>>> was first developed, as I recall. Nobody thought that the ability
>>> to remove an enum value was worth the amount of complexity it'd
>>> entail.
>
>> This issue comes up regularly (although far from often). Do we want to
>> put some comments right where would-be implementors would be sure to see it?
>
> Perhaps. I'd be kind of inclined to leave the "yet" out of "not yet
> implemented" in the error message, as that wording sounds like we just
> haven't got round to it.
I see your point, but should we be dissuading people who might want to
work on solving those problems? I intentionally did not document that
this syntax exists so the only people seeing the message are those who
just try it, and those wanting to write a patch like Danil did.
No one except you has said anything about this patch. I think it would
be good to commit it, wordsmithing aside.
--
Vik Fearing
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2023-10-02 18:07:53 | Re: Allow deleting enumerated values from an existing enumerated data type |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-10-02 17:26:43 | Re: commitfest app down for repairs |