Re: Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value
Date
Msg-id 18738.1459617659@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Looking at this briefly. It looks like the check should be called from 
> enum_in() and enum_recv(). What error should be raised if the enum row's 
> xmin isn't committed? ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED? or maybe 
> ERRCODE_DATA_EXCEPTION? I don't see anything that fits very well.

ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE is something we use in some
other places where the meaning is "just wait awhile, dude".  Or you
could invent a new ERRCODE.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: raw output from copy