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

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2016-04-24 18:44:22
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/02/2016 01:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Looking at this briefly. It looks like the check should be called from
>> enum_in() and enum_recv(). What error should be raised if the enum row's
>> xmin isn't committed? ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED? or maybe
>> ERRCODE_DATA_EXCEPTION? I don't see anything that fits very well.
> ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE is something we use in some
> other places where the meaning is "just wait awhile, dude". Or you
> could invent a new ERRCODE.

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.



Attachment Content-Type Size
transactional_enum-additions-v1x.patch binary/octet-stream 10.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-04-24 18:58:14 Ordering in guc.c vs. config.sgml vs. postgresql.sample.conf
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-04-24 18:42:53 Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?