Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> The reason I don't want to do it that way is that then you need two
> > >> ugly kluges in the backend, not just one.  With the zero-and-add-one
> > >> approach there is no need to have a "next enum oid" variable at all.
> > 
> > > Uh, I still need that variable because that is how we are going to set
> > > the oid in EnumValuesCreate(), unless we want to add dummy oid-value
> > > arguments to that function for use only by the binary upgrade
> > > server-side function.
> > 
> > Please go back and re-read what I suggested: you need a function along
> > the lines of
> >     add_enum_member(enum-type, 'value name', value-oid)
> > and then there's no need for any saved state.  So what if it has a
> > different signature from the other pg_migrator special functions?
> > It's not doing the same thing.
> 
> OK, right, I can get rid of the enum function that just sets the next
> oid value if I do all the enum value creation via function calls.  I
> will work in that direction then.

There is only one call to EnumValuesCreate() so maybe adding a
binary-upgrade-only parameter to the function will be the cleanest
approach.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +