Re: Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias Kurz <m(dot)kurz(at)irregular(dot)at>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value
Date: 2016-09-04 00:04:20
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> OK, did that. Here is a patch that is undocumented but I think is
> otherwise complete. It's been tested a bit and we haven't been able to
> break it. Comments welcome.

Got around to looking at this. Attached is a revised version that I think
is in committable shape. The main non-cosmetic change is that the test
for "type was created in same transaction as new value" now consists of
comparing the xmins of the pg_type and pg_enum rows, without consulting
GetCurrentTransactionId(). I did not like the original coding because
it would pointlessly disallow references to enum values that were created
in a parent transaction of the current subxact. This way is still leaving
some subxact use-cases on the table, as noted in the code comments, but
it's more flexible than before.

Barring objections I'll push this soon.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
transactional_enum_additions-v2.patch text/x-diff 15.8 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-09-04 03:50:21 Re: LSN as a recovery target
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-09-03 23:13:59 Re: Long options for pg_ctl waiting