On Dec 19, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>>>> Seems I need some help here. >>> >>> I'm willing to work on this --- it doesn't look particularly fun but >>> we really need it. >> >> You don't know fun until you have tried to stack hack upon hack and >> still create a reliable migration system. :-( > > They say that people who love sausage and respect the law should never > watch either one being made, and I have to say I'm coming to feel that > way about in-place upgrade, too.
Perhaps we should be ordering bacon instead of sausage... Is there some reason why OIDs were used for ENUM instead of a general sequence? Were we worried about people screwing with the sequence? A sequences would presumably eliminate all these issues. Even if we wanted to disallow user access to the sequence, having something that's not competing with all the other uses of OID would presumably make this a lot simpler. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
