On 09/27/2017 06:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> doc: first draft of Postgres 10 release notes > I noticed that this item > > +<!-- > +Author: Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > +2016-09-05 [15bc038f9] Relax transactional restrictions on ALTER TYPE ... > ADD V > +--> > +<para> > +Reduce locking required for adding values to enum types (Andrew Dunstan, > +Tom Lane) > +</para> > + > +<para> > +Previously it was impossible to run <command>ALTER TYPE ... ADD > VALUE</> in a > +transaction block unless the enum type was created in the same block. > +Now, only references to uncommitted enum values from other transactions > +is prohibited. > +</para> > > does not really explain this change very clearly. (The release note item > was slightly changed later, but not in the substance.) It says it's > about "locking", but it is certainly not about what we normally call > "locking" in Postgres. > > So, firstly I suggest it doesn't belong in the "Locking" section, but > rather it should be under "Utility Commands" instead. Second, I think > it should say "Reduce transactional requirements" rather than "reduce > locking required". > > I think there are further changes needed because of commits 175774d2932d > and 01c5de88ff2, but that's not what I'm on about here, though > discussion on that is welcome. > > Contrary opinions? >
It looks like this is moot anyway, I think the consensus is to remove the feature and try again in release 11. 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