On 8/28/18 12:06 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2018-08-28 17:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org > <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>>: > > >> On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule >> <pavel.steh...@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2018-08-28 16:38 GMT+02:00 Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org >> <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>>: >> >> >> > On Aug 26, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us >> <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: >> > >> > I wrote: >> >> [ dropping and recreating a composite type confuses plpgsql ] >> >> That's not very nice. What's worse is that it works >> cleanly in v10, >> >> making this a regression, no doubt caused by the hacking I >> did on >> >> plpgsql's handling of composite variables. >> > >> > So I'm now inclined to withdraw this as an open item. On >> the other >> > hand, it is a bit worrisome that I happened to hit on a >> case that >> > worked better before. Maybe I'm wrong to judge this >> unlikely to >> > happen in the field. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> >> Typically if you’re creating a composite type, you’re >> planning to store >> data in that type, so you’re probably not going to just drop >> it without >> an appropriate migration strategy around it, which would >> (hopefully) >> prevent the above case from happening. >> >> I wouldn’t let this block the release, so +1 for removing >> from open >> items. >> >> >> That depends - the question is - what is a reason of this issue, >> and how to fix it? > > Tom explained the cause and a proposed a fix earlier in the > thread, and > cautioned that it could involve a performance hit. > >> It is not strong issue, but it is issue, that breaks without >> outage deployment. > > Have you encountered this issue in the field? It is a bug, but it > seems to > be an edge case based on normal usage of PostgreSQL, and I still don’t > see a reason why it needs to be fixed prior to the release of 11. > If there’s > an easier solution for solving it, yes, we could go ahead, but it > sounds like > there’s a nontrivial amount of work + testing to do. > > I do think it should be fixed for 12 now that we’ve identified it. > We could move > it from the “Open Items” to the “Live Issues” list for what it’s > worth. > > > +1
I've gone ahead and moved this to "Live Issues" - Thanks! Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
