On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 07:32:48PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2012-12-01 12:14:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > On 2012-12-01 12:00:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> ISTM this sort of thing ought to be safe enough, though you probably > > >> need to insist both that the pg_type row's xmin be current XID and > > >> that it not be HEAP_UPDATED. > > > > > I was concerned about updated rows but forgot about HEAP_UPDATED. So I > > > thought that it would be possible to alter the type in some generic > > > fashion (e.g. change owner) and then add new values. > > > > Yeah, I was just thinking about that: we'd have to fail if pg_dump > > emitted CREATE TYPE, ALTER TYPE OWNER, and then tried to add more > > values. Fortunately it doesn't do that; the ADD VALUE business is > > just a multi-statement expansion of CREATE TYPE AS ENUM, and any > > other ALTERs will come afterwards. > > Well, there's a binary_upgrade.set_next_pg_enum_oid() inbetween, but thats > luckily just fine.
Do we need a comment in pg_dump.c to make sure that doesn't change? > > > Let me provide something a littlebit more mature. > > > > It could do with some comments ;-) > > Hehe, yes. Hopefully this version has enough of that. I believe this text in alter_type.sgml need updating: <command>ALTER TYPE ... ADD VALUE</> (the form that adds a new value to an enum type) cannot be executed inside a transaction block. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
