On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:32 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> > In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred to as "blacklist" in our codebase, which is
the"enum blacklist" (and then a small internal variable in pgindent). AFAICT, it's not actually exposed to userspace
anywhere,so we could probably make the attached change to blocklist at no "cost" (the only thing changed is the name of
thehash table, and we definitely change things like that in normal releases with no specific thought on backwards
compat).
>
> +1
>
> Hmm, can we find a more descriptive name for this mechanism? What
> about calling it the "uncommitted enum table"? See attached.
Thanks for picking this one up again!
Agreed, that's a much better choice.
The term itself is a bit of a mouthful, but it does describe what it
is in a much more clear way than what the old term did anyway.
Maybe consider just calling it "uncomitted enums", which would as a
bonus have it not end up talking about uncommittedenumtablespace which
gets hits on searches for tablespace.. Though I'm not sure that's
important.
I'm +1 to the change with or without that adjustment.
As for the code, I note that:
+ /* Set up the enum table if not already done in this transaction */
forgets to say it's *uncomitted* enum table -- which is the important
part of I believe.
And
+ * Test if the given enum value is in the table of blocked enums.
should probably talk about uncommitted rather than blocked?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
