Horton

Re: [HACKERS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>, Christophe Pettus <christophe.pettus@pgexperts.com>, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2017-09-26T22:18:53Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers 

On 09/26/2017 06:04 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 09/26/2017 05:45 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I've not been following along very closely- are we sure that ripping
>> this out won't be worse than dealing with it in-place?  Will pulling it
>> out also require a post-RC1 catversion bump?
>>
>>
>
> It shouldn't do AFAIK - the function signatures weren't changed.
>


At this stage on reflection I agree it should be pulled :-(

I'm not happy about the idea of marking an input function as not
parallel safe, certainly not without a good deal of thought and
discussion that we don't have time for this cycle.

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Revert to 9.6 treatment of ALTER TYPE enumtype ADD VALUE.

  2. Remove heuristic same-transaction test from check_safe_enum_use().

  3. Use a blacklist to distinguish original from add-on enum values.

  4. Add support for coordinating record typmods among parallel workers.