| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Date: | 2010-10-17 20:10:06 |
| Message-ID: | 13890.1287346206@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 10/17/2010 03:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think what this says is that we cannot allow any manipulations that
>> involve an uncommitted enum value. Probably the easiest way is to make
>> the ALTER TYPE operation disallowed-inside-transaction-block. That's
>> pretty ugly, but doesn't seem like a serious restriction in practice
>> (though for example it'd mean we couldn't use it in pg_dump).
> Even in binary upgrade mode?
Binary upgrade can probably be treated as a special case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-17 20:17:20 | Re: Floating-point timestamps versus Range Types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-17 19:56:07 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |