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

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 14:24:53
Message-ID: b2890b9d-2383-955f-786c-8e252dce04cb@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On 09/25/2017 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>

I understood you to say that the blacklist patch was all we needed to do
for v10. That's my position, i.e. I think we can live with the heuristic
test for now if the blacklist patch is applied. Maybe we need to
document that the heuristic test can generate some false negatives when
testing for a type that is created in the current transaction.

cheers

andrew

--

Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-09-25 14:42:59 Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-09-25 14:14:37 Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-09-25 14:32:25 Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-09-25 14:22:58 Re: Server crash due to SIGBUS(Bus Error) when trying to access the memory created using dsm_create().