Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 3:00 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So I'm glad we found that sooner not later, but something needs
>> to be done about it if [1] is to get committed. It doesn't seem
>> particularly hard to fix though: we just have to track the enum
>> type OIDs made in the current transaction, using largely the same
>> approach as is already used in pg_enum.c to track enum value OIDs.
> Makes sense, Nice clear comments.
Thanks for looking. Pushed after a bit more work on the comments.
regards, tom lane
