Re: Allow deleting enumerated values from an existing enumerated data type

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Данил Столповских <danil(dot)stolpovskikh(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, o(dot)tselebrovskiy(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, d(dot)frolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru
Subject: Re: Allow deleting enumerated values from an existing enumerated data type
Date: 2023-09-28 18:46:22
Message-ID: 1081742.1695926782@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:
> I wonder if we could have a boolean flag in pg_enum, indicating that
> setting an enum to that value was forbidden.

Yeah, but that still offers no coherent solution to the problem of
what happens if there's a table that already contains such a value.
It doesn't seem terribly useful to forbid new entries if you can't
get rid of old ones.

Admittedly, a DISABLE flag would at least offer a chance at a
race-condition-free scan to verify that no such values remain
in tables. But as somebody already mentioned upthread, that
wouldn't guarantee that the value doesn't appear in non-leaf
index pages. So basically you could never get rid of the pg_enum
row, short of a full dump and restore.

We went through all these points years ago when the enum feature
was first developed, as I recall. Nobody thought that the ability
to remove an enum value was worth the amount of complexity it'd
entail.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2023-09-28 19:03:41 Re: Index range search optimization
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2023-09-28 18:35:57 Re: Allow deleting enumerated values from an existing enumerated data type