From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump versus enum types, round N+1 |
Date: | 2024-03-24 18:32:06 |
Message-ID: | 2159672.1711305126@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 Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 3:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So I'm glad we found that sooner not later, but something needs
>> to be done about it if [1] is to get committed. It doesn't seem
>> particularly hard to fix though: we just have to track the enum
>> type OIDs made in the current transaction, using largely the same
>> approach as is already used in pg_enum.c to track enum value OIDs.
> Makes sense, Nice clear comments.
Thanks for looking. Pushed after a bit more work on the comments.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-03-24 19:55:22 | Re: Combine Prune and Freeze records emitted by vacuum |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-03-24 18:22:14 | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |