-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Log Message: > >> ----------- > >> Update: > >> > >> >> > >>> * Allow adding/removing enumerated values to an existing enumerated data > > > > Where did this come from? Adding values anywhere except on the end of > > the enumeration list will be fraught with danger, as will removing them. > > In essence, either operation would entail rewriting every table that > > used the type. Anything else carries a major risk of corruption. That > > seems like a pretty bad idea. > > We already support rewriting tables ... (albeit only one at a time, I > admit. Doing it for more than one can cause deadlocks). > > Still, if the user wants to pay the cost, why should we prohibit it? >
I agree with Alvaro's sentiment here, but it does seem likely that adding an value to the end of an enum list is much lower-hanging fruit than add/remove. Has anyone had a close look at how hard it would be allow just the "add to the end" capability? Cheers, BJ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFIEiWO5YBsbHkuyV0RAo5pAKDMQ7aAbJJyIe74c+PacXVXg5chXACdEnv3 sFiNsSf193/C9HpW5UVhYWs= =jOzI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
