On Mar 27, 2016, at 7:20 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I do not know whether this would be a meaningful improvement for > common use-cases, though.
It would certainly be a step forward over the current situation. It would mean that a specific imaginable use-case (inserting a new enum value, then populating a dimension table for it) would have to be done as two migrations rather than one, but that is much more doable in most tools than having a migration run without a transaction at all. -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
