On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 22:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > On 2023-09-28 Th 14:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We went through all these points years ago when the enum feature
> >> was first developed, as I recall. Nobody thought that the ability
> >> to remove an enum value was worth the amount of complexity it'd
> >> entail.
>
> > That's quite true, and I accept my part in this history. But I'm not
> > sure we were correct back then.
>
> I think it was the right decision at the time, given that the
> alternative was to not add the enum feature at all. The question
> is whether we're now prepared to do additional work to support DROP
> VALUE. But the tradeoff still looks pretty grim, because the
> problems haven't gotten any easier.
>
> I've been trying to convince myself that there'd be some value in
> your idea about a DISABLE flag, but I feel like there's something
> missing there. The easiest implementation would be to have
> enum_in() reject disabled values, while still allowing enum_out()
> to print them. But that doesn't seem to lead to nice results:
>
> [...]
>
> On the whole this is still a long way from a clean easy-to-use DROP
> facility, and it adds a lot of complexity of its own for pg_dump.
> So I'm not sure we want to build it.
I don't quite get what the hard problem is that we haven't already
solved for other systems:
We already can add additional constraints to domains (e.g. VALUE::int
<> 4), which (according to docs) scan existing data columns for
violations. We already drop columns without rewriting the table to
remove the column's data, and reject new data insertions for those
still-in-the-catalogs-but-inaccessible columns.
So, if a user wants to drop an enum value, why couldn't we "just" use
the DOMAIN facilities and 1.) add a constraint WHERE value NOT IN
(deleted_values), and after validation of that constraint 2.) mark the
enum value as deleted like we do with table column's pg_attribute
entries?
The only real issue that I can think of is making sure that concurrent
backends don't modify this data, but that shouldn't be very different
from the other locks we already have to take in e.g. ALTER TYPE ...
DROP ATTRIBUTE.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
