| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work |
| Date: | 2012-12-01 17:08:23 |
| Message-ID: | 50BA3987.9060705@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/01/2012 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Does this actually get you over the problem identified in the comment?:
>> * We disallow this in transaction blocks, because we can't cope
>> * with enum OID values getting into indexes and then having their
>> * defining pg_enum entries go away.
> Why wouldn't it? If the enum type was created in the current xact, then
> surely any table columns of the type, or a fortiori indexes on the type,
> were also created in the current xact and they'd all go away on abort.
>
>
OK, I understand. So this seems like a Good Thing to do.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-01 17:10:18 | Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-01 17:06:02 | Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work |