On 09/22/2017 11:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

I see what you're saying, but my idea was slightly different. We would
only add to the hashtable I had in mind at the bottom AddEnumLabel().
Any other value, whether added in the current transaction or not, should
be safe, AIUI. Maybe we should also keep a cache of whitelisted enums
created in the current transaction.

I'm not to worried about people creating a zillion enums (or enum labels
being added for the solution I had in mind). Even a hash of a million
Oids will only consume a few megabytes, won't it?

> 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.

Sadly I agree. We've made decisions like this in the past, and I have
generally been supportive of them. I think this is the first time I have
been on the receiving end of one so late in the process :-(



Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

Reply via email to