On 03/27/2016 12:43 AM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
On Mar 26, 2016, at 7:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
It would be nice if we could find a less broad brush approach to dealing with 
the issue.
I don't know how doable this is, but could we use the existing mechanism of 
marking an index invalid if it contains an enum type to which a value was 
added, and the transaction was rolled back?  For the 90% use case, that would 
be acceptable, I would expect.

The more I think about this the more I bump up against the fact that almost anything we do might want to do to ameliorate the situation is going to be rolled back. The only approach I can think of that doesn't suffer from this is to abort if an insert/update will affect an index on a modified enum. i.e. we prevent the possible corruption from happening in the first place, as we do now, but in a much more fine grained way.



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to