| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | balazs(at)obiserver(dot)hu, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |
| Date: | 2017-09-25 14:14:37 |
| Message-ID: | 25809.1506348877@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 09/24/2017 07:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I think we should just stop with the blacklist test for v10,
>> and then see if we still get complaints (and exactly what they're
>> about) so that we can judge how much more work the problem deserves.
>> It's still ahead of where we were in previous releases, and ahead of
>> where we'd be if we end up reverting the patch altogether.
> That's pretty much what I was saying.
Oh ... I did not think we were on the same page, because your patch
didn't include removal of the same-transaction heuristic. It'd be
sensible to do that as a separate patch, though, to make it easier
to put back if we decide we do want it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-09-25 14:24:53 | Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2017-09-25 10:43:49 | Re: Query planner skipping index depending on DISTINCT parameter order (2) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Kuzmenkov | 2017-09-25 14:17:42 | Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots |
| Previous Message | Shubham Barai | 2017-09-25 13:34:10 | Re: GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index |