Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Date: 2009-12-24T22:40:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> The reason I don't want to do it that way is that then you need two >> ugly kluges in the backend, not just one. With the zero-and-add-one >> approach there is no need to have a "next enum oid" variable at all. > Uh, I still need that variable because that is how we are going to set > the oid in EnumValuesCreate(), unless we want to add dummy oid-value > arguments to that function for use only by the binary upgrade > server-side function. Please go back and re-read what I suggested: you need a function along the lines of add_enum_member(enum-type, 'value name', value-oid) and then there's no need for any saved state. So what if it has a different signature from the other pg_migrator special functions? It's not doing the same thing. regards, tom lane