Vik Fearing <v...@postgresfriends.org> writes: > 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.
FWIW I'm +1 on this patch, and with Tom on dropping the "yet". To me it makes it sound like we intend to implement it soon (fsvo). - ilmari