Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
Date
Msg-id 16025.1506461535@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
List pgsql-bugs
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Any other votes out there?

> Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close
> to release. (I got consistent regression failures.)  I think PG 11 would
> be better for this feature change, so I support reverting this.

I'll take the blame for (most of) yesterday's failures in the v10
branch, but they were unrelated to this patch --- they were because
of that SIGBUS patch I messed up.  So that doesn't seem like a very
applicable argument.  Still, it's true that this seems like the most
consequential patch that's gone into v10 post-RC1, certainly so if
you discount stuff that was back-patched further than v10.
        regards, tom lane


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

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14827: "ALTER TABLE... IF NOT EXISTS...ADD..BIGSERIAL" leaves extra sequences
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?