|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?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
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
|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|
|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)|