On 9/29/23 03:17, Tom Lane wrote:
Vik Fearing <v...@postgresfriends.org> writes:
On 9/28/23 20:46, Tom Lane wrote:
We went through all these points years ago when the enum feature
was first developed, as I recall. Nobody thought that the ability
to remove an enum value was worth the amount of complexity it'd
entail.
This issue comes up regularly (although far from often). Do we want to
put some comments right where would-be implementors would be sure to see it?
Perhaps. I'd be kind of inclined to leave the "yet" out of "not yet
implemented" in the error message, as that wording sounds like we just
haven't got round to it.
I see your point, but should we be dissuading people who might want to
work on solving those problems? I intentionally did not document that
this syntax exists so the only people seeing the message are those who
just try it, and those wanting to write a patch like Danil did.
No one except you has said anything about this patch. I think it would
be good to commit it, wordsmithing aside.
--
Vik Fearing
