Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dww8Z-0007dB-Kx for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:07:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dww8Z-0000jg-7T for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:07:23 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dww8X-0000gU-E7; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:07:21 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dww8Q-0005Z8-DM; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:07:20 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v8QK72ss012793; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:07:02 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andrew Dunstan cc: "David E. Wheeler" , Christophe Pettus , pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? In-reply-to: <38835cdd-c378-8d7a-013b-fd733c78c649@2ndQuadrant.com> References: <20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <24380.1506179805@sss.pgh.pa.us> <16272.1506189656@sss.pgh.pa.us> <928f5974-151f-0273-0221-fac213e7624f@2ndQuadrant.com> <19137.1506196325@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4942e2c0-3302-f496-d4c1-a967f77d0143@2ndQuadrant.com> <25662.1506204381@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9479302a-09b8-4264-f9c4-514b65f18547@2ndQuadrant.com> <18127.1506285450@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2770f70a-5977-3fa1-1065-11b4cc69f07f@2ndQuadrant.com> <23438.1506294409@sss.pgh.pa.us> <25809.1506348877@sss.pgh.pa.us> <27064.1506350579@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5f4f29bf-90b1-e49a-6cf9-069c59bc1067@2ndQuadrant.com> <40FDB1F3-932D-4912-B4C7-F1E26E331079@justatheory.com> <7ca5214d-f981-54e4-c65a-470a87aa665e@2ndQuad! ! ! rant.com> <1090.1506365074@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9666.1506446327@sss.pgh.pa.us> <329.1506451066@sss.pgh.pa.us> <38835cdd-! c378-8d7a-013b-fd733c78c649@2ndQuadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:33:03 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <12791.1506456422.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:07:02 -0400 Message-ID: <12792.1506456422@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 09/26/2017 02:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... and the buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like force_parallel_mode >> breaks all the regression test cases around unsafe enums; which on >> reflection is unsurprising, because parallel workers will not have access >> to the parent's blacklist hash, so they will think unsafe values are safe. > I think I would mark enum_in and friends as parallel-restricted. Yes I > know it would involve a cat version bump, so I'll understand if that's > not acceptable, but it seems to me the best of a bad bunch of choices. > Second choice might be turning off parallel mode if the hash exists, but > I'm unclear how that would work. Meh. I'm starting to slide back to my original opinion that we should revert back to 9.6 behavior. Even if a post-RC1 catversion bump is OK, making these sorts of changes a week before GA is not comfort inducing. I'm losing faith that we've thought through the issue thoroughly, and there's no longer time to catch any remaining oversights through testing. Any other votes out there? 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