Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:45:48 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>,
	"David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>,
	Christophe Pettus <christophe.pettus@pgexperts.com>,
	pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
Message-ID: <20170926214548.GQ4628@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <27064.1506350579@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <5f4f29bf-90b1-e49a-6cf9-069c59bc1067@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <40FDB1F3-932D-4912-B4C7-F1E26E331079@justatheory.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>
 <12792.1506456422@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20170926211419.GB7167@momjian.us>
 <16025.1506461535@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FiNfgRWQiamNHTWa"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16025.1506461535@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--FiNfgRWQiamNHTWa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tom, all,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Any other votes out there?
>=20
> > Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close
> > to release. (I got consistent regression failures.)  I think PG 11 would
> > be better for this feature change, so I support reverting this.
>=20
> I'll take the blame for (most of) yesterday's failures in the v10
> branch, but they were unrelated to this patch --- they were because
> of that SIGBUS patch I messed up.  So that doesn't seem like a very
> applicable argument.  Still, it's true that this seems like the most
> consequential patch that's gone into v10 post-RC1, certainly so if
> you discount stuff that was back-patched further than v10.

I've not been following along very closely- are we sure that ripping
this out won't be worse than dealing with it in-place?  Will pulling it
out also require a post-RC1 catversion bump?

If we can pull it out without bumping catversion and with confidence
that it won't cause more problems then, as much as I hate it, I'm
inclined to say we pull it out and come back to it in v11.  I really
don't like the idea of a post-rc1 catversion bump and it doesn't seem
like there's a good solution here that doesn't involve more changes and
most likely a catversion bump.  If it was reasonably fixable with only
small/local changes and without a catversion bump then I'd be more
inclined to keep it, but I gather from the discussion that's not the
case.

Thanks!

Stephen

--FiNfgRWQiamNHTWa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=qCWQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FiNfgRWQiamNHTWa--