Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16464.1354382077@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2012-12-01 12:00:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> ISTM this sort of thing ought to be safe enough, though you probably >> need to insist both that the pg_type row's xmin be current XID and >> that it not be HEAP_UPDATED. > I was concerned about updated rows but forgot about HEAP_UPDATED. So I > thought that it would be possible to alter the type in some generic > fashion (e.g. change owner) and then add new values. Yeah, I was just thinking about that: we'd have to fail if pg_dump emitted CREATE TYPE, ALTER TYPE OWNER, and then tried to add more values. Fortunately it doesn't do that; the ADD VALUE business is just a multi-statement expansion of CREATE TYPE AS ENUM, and any other ALTERs will come afterwards. > Let me provide something a littlebit more mature. It could do with some comments ;-) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: