Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 09/22/2017 11:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I was considering the same thing over dinner, though I'd phrase
>> it oppositely: keep a list of enum type OIDs created in the current
>> transaction, so that we could whitelist them. This could maybe become
>> a problem if someone created a zillion enums in one xact, though.

> I see what you're saying, but my idea was slightly different. We would
> only add to the hashtable I had in mind at the bottom AddEnumLabel().
> Any other value, whether added in the current transaction or not, should
> be safe, AIUI.

Oh, I see: a list of enum values we need to blacklist, not whitelist.
Yes, that's a significantly better idea than mine, because in common
use-cases that would be empty or have a very small number of entries.
In particular that fixes the "pg_restore -1" scenario, because no
matter how many enums you're restoring, pg_dump doesn't use ALTER
TYPE ADD VALUE. (Well, it does in --binary-upgrade mode, but those
scripts are run in transaction-per-statement mode so it's fine.)

> Maybe we should also keep a cache of whitelisted enums
> created in the current transaction.

What for? Wouldn't be any faster to search, in fact likely slower
because it could get large in common use-cases.

>> The immediate question is do we care to design/implement such a thing
>> post-RC1. I'd have to vote "no". I think the most prudent thing to
>> do is revert 15bc038f9 and then have another go at it during the v11
>> cycle.

> Sadly I agree. We've made decisions like this in the past, and I have
> generally been supportive of them. I think this is the first time I have
> been on the receiving end of one so late in the process :-(

Unless you want to try writing a patch for this in the next day or two,
I think we have to do that. But now that I see the plan clearly, maybe
we could get away with a post-RC1 fix.

regards, tom lane