From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Christophe Pettus <christophe.pettus@pgexperts.com>,
 pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
 "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>
References: <20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <15165.1506116768@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3cece400-af56-7145-2e65-f044de1b0b68@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <28968.1506136792@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <f29e2d7e-7d71-b3b7-2fed-d52bddd8ca61@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <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>
 <a9a175c3-164b-6997-8b97-c04d1c2df753@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <25809.1506348877@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <b2890b9d-2383-955f-786c-8e252dce04cb@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <27064.1506350579@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <5f4f29bf-90b1-e49a-6cf9-069c59bc1067@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:55:58 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <27064.1506350579@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-MW
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


On 09/25/2017 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 09/25/2017 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Oh ... I did not think we were on the same page, because your patch
>>> didn't include removal of the same-transaction heuristic.  It'd be
>>> sensible to do that as a separate patch, though, to make it easier
>>> to put back if we decide we do want it.
>> I understood you to say that the blacklist patch was all we needed to do
>> for v10. That's my position, i.e. I think we can live with the heuristic
>> test for now if the blacklist patch is applied. Maybe we need to
>> document that the heuristic test can generate some false negatives when
>> testing for a type that is created in the current transaction.
> No, as I said upthread, I want the heuristic out of there.  I think the
> blacklist idea covers enough use-cases that we possibly don't need the
> same-transaction test at all.  Furthermore I'm doubtful that the heuristic
> form of the same-transaction test is adequate to satisfy the use-cases
> that the blacklist test doesn't cover.  So I think we should remove that
> test and see whether we get any complaints, and if so what the details of
> the real-world use-cases look like.
>
> 			


Let's ask a couple of users who I think are or have been actually
hurting on this point. Christophe and David, any opinions?

cheers

andrew

-- 
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers