On 09/24/2017 04:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> OK, here's the finished patch. It has a pretty small footprint all
>> things considered, and I think it guarantees that nothing that could be
>> done in this area in 9.6 will be forbidden. That's probably enough to
>> get us to 10 without having to revert the whole thing, ISTM, and we can
>> leave any further refinement to the next release.
> I think this could do with some more work on the comments and test cases,
> but it's basically sound.
>
> What we still need to debate is whether to remove the heuristic
> type-is-from-same-transaction test, making the user-visible behavior
> simply "you must commit an ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE before you can use the
> new value". I'm kind of inclined to do so; the fuzzy (and inadequately
> documented) behavior we'll have if we keep it doesn't seem very nice to
> me.
>
>
I'd rather not. The failure cases are going to be vanishingly small, I
suspect, and we've already discussed how we might improve that test. If
you want to put some weasel words in the docs that might be ok.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs