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: balazs@obiserver.hu, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
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>
Message-ID: <69cf0c50-949d-047e-24f6-aeb0871aac67@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:48:23 -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: <24380.1506179805@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 09/23/2017 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>
>>> 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 :-(
> Unless you want to try writing a patch for this in the next day or two,
> I think we have to do that.  But now that I see the plan clearly, maybe
> we could get away with a post-RC1 fix.


OK, I'll give it a shot.

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