| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias Kurz <m(dot)kurz(at)irregular(dot)at>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alter or rename enum value |
| Date: | 2016-03-27 04:43:18 |
| Message-ID: | B9E6AF60-A402-4388-BE5A-BD078F3A3155@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mar 26, 2016, at 7:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> It would be nice if we could find a less broad brush approach to dealing with the issue.
I don't know how doable this is, but could we use the existing mechanism of marking an index invalid if it contains an enum type to which a value was added, and the transaction was rolled back? For the 90% use case, that would be acceptable, I would expect.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof(at)thebuild(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-03-27 09:01:01 | Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-27 03:48:02 | Re: Draft release notes for next week's releases |