From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: 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> <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>
Message-ID: <b2890b9d-2383-955f-786c-8e252dce04cb@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:24:53 -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: <25809.1506348877@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-MW
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org


On 09/25/2017 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 09/24/2017 07:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So I think we should just stop with the blacklist test for v10,
>>> and then see if we still get complaints (and exactly what they're
>>> about) so that we can judge how much more work the problem deserves.
>>> It's still ahead of where we were in previous releases, and ahead of
>>> where we'd be if we end up reverting the patch altogether.
>> That's pretty much what I was saying.
> 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.

cheers

andrew

-- 

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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs