| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work |
| Date: | 2012-12-01 17:14:37 |
| Message-ID: | 16464.1354382077@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2012-12-01 12:00:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM this sort of thing ought to be safe enough, though you probably
>> need to insist both that the pg_type row's xmin be current XID and
>> that it not be HEAP_UPDATED.
> I was concerned about updated rows but forgot about HEAP_UPDATED. So I
> thought that it would be possible to alter the type in some generic
> fashion (e.g. change owner) and then add new values.
Yeah, I was just thinking about that: we'd have to fail if pg_dump
emitted CREATE TYPE, ALTER TYPE OWNER, and then tried to add more
values. Fortunately it doesn't do that; the ADD VALUE business is
just a multi-statement expansion of CREATE TYPE AS ENUM, and any
other ALTERs will come afterwards.
> Let me provide something a littlebit more mature.
It could do with some comments ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-01 17:56:17 | Re: Tablespaces in the data directory |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-01 17:11:57 | Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work |