Re: [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 09/26/2017 02:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... and the buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like force_parallel_mode
> >> breaks all the regression test cases around unsafe enums; which on
> >> reflection is unsurprising, because parallel workers will not have access
> >> to the parent's blacklist hash, so they will think unsafe values are safe.
>
> > I think I would mark enum_in and friends as parallel-restricted. Yes I
> > know it would involve a cat version bump, so I'll understand if that's
> > not acceptable, but it seems to me the best of a bad bunch of choices.
> > Second choice might be turning off parallel mode if the hash exists, but
> > I'm unclear how that would work.
>
> Meh. I'm starting to slide back to my original opinion that we should
> revert back to 9.6 behavior. Even if a post-RC1 catversion bump is OK,
> making these sorts of changes a week before GA is not comfort inducing.
> I'm losing faith that we've thought through the issue thoroughly, and
> there's no longer time to catch any remaining oversights through testing.
>
> Any other votes out there?

Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close
to release. (I got consistent regression failures.) I think PG 11 would
be better for this feature change, so I support reverting this.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +