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

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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)