On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:32 PM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred to as > > "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and then a > > small internal variable in pgindent). AFAICT, it's not actually exposed to > > userspace anywhere, so we could probably make the attached change to > > blocklist at no "cost" (the only thing changed is the name of the hash > > table, and we definitely change things like that in normal releases with no > > specific thought on backwards compat). > > +1 > > Hmm, can we find a more descriptive name for this mechanism? What > about calling it the "uncommitted enum table"? See attached.
Thanks for picking this one up again! Agreed, that's a much better choice. The term itself is a bit of a mouthful, but it does describe what it is in a much more clear way than what the old term did anyway. Maybe consider just calling it "uncomitted enums", which would as a bonus have it not end up talking about uncommittedenumtablespace which gets hits on searches for tablespace.. Though I'm not sure that's important. I'm +1 to the change with or without that adjustment. As for the code, I note that: + /* Set up the enum table if not already done in this transaction */ forgets to say it's *uncomitted* enum table -- which is the important part of I believe. And + * Test if the given enum value is in the table of blocked enums. should probably talk about uncommitted rather than blocked? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
