Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 09/22/2017 05:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure if that qualifies as a stop-ship problem, but it ain't
>> good, for sure. We need to look at whether we should revert 15bc038f9
>> or somehow revise its rules.
> I wonder if we wouldn't be better
> doing this more directly, keeping a per-transaction hash of unsafe enum
> values (which will almost always be empty). It might even speed up the
> check.
Yeah, I was considering the same thing over dinner, though I'd phrase
it oppositely: keep a list of enum type OIDs created in the current
transaction, so that we could whitelist them. This could maybe become
a problem if someone created a zillion enums in one xact, though.
The immediate question is do we care to design/implement such a thing
post-RC1. I'd have to vote "no". I think the most prudent thing to
do is revert 15bc038f9 and then have another go at it during the v11
cycle.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
