On 09/24/2017 04:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> OK, here's the finished patch. It has a pretty small footprint all >> things considered, and I think it guarantees that nothing that could be >> done in this area in 9.6 will be forbidden. That's probably enough to >> get us to 10 without having to revert the whole thing, ISTM, and we can >> leave any further refinement to the next release. > I think this could do with some more work on the comments and test cases, > but it's basically sound. > > What we still need to debate is whether to remove the heuristic > type-is-from-same-transaction test, making the user-visible behavior > simply "you must commit an ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE before you can use the > new value". I'm kind of inclined to do so; the fuzzy (and inadequately > documented) behavior we'll have if we keep it doesn't seem very nice to > me. > >
I'd rather not. The failure cases are going to be vanishingly small, I suspect, and we've already discussed how we might improve that test. If you want to put some weasel words in the docs that might be ok. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers