pgsql: doc: first draft of Postgres 10 release notes

Bruce Momjian wrote:

doc: first draft of Postgres 10 release notes

I noticed that this item

+<!--
+Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
+2016-09-05 [15bc038f9] Relax transactional restrictions on ALTER TYPE ... ADD V
+-->
+<para>
+Reduce locking required for adding values to enum types (Andrew Dunstan,
+Tom Lane)
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Previously it was impossible to run <command>ALTER TYPE ... ADD
VALUE</> in a
+transaction block unless the enum type was created in the same block. 
+Now, only references to uncommitted enum values from other transactions
+is prohibited.
+</para>

does not really explain this change very clearly. (The release note item
was slightly changed later, but not in the substance.) It says it's
about "locking", but it is certainly not about what we normally call
"locking" in Postgres.

So, firstly I suggest it doesn't belong in the "Locking" section, but
rather it should be under "Utility Commands" instead. Second, I think
it should say "Reduce transactional requirements" rather than "reduce
locking required".

I think there are further changes needed because of commits 175774d2932d
and 01c5de88ff2, but that's not what I'm on about here, though
discussion on that is welcome.

Contrary opinions?

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

On 09/27/2017 06:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

doc: first draft of Postgres 10 release notes

I noticed that this item

+<!--
+Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
+2016-09-05 [15bc038f9] Relax transactional restrictions on ALTER TYPE ... ADD V
+-->
+<para>
+Reduce locking required for adding values to enum types (Andrew Dunstan,
+Tom Lane)
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Previously it was impossible to run <command>ALTER TYPE ... ADD
VALUE</> in a
+transaction block unless the enum type was created in the same block. 
+Now, only references to uncommitted enum values from other transactions
+is prohibited.
+</para>

does not really explain this change very clearly. (The release note item
was slightly changed later, but not in the substance.) It says it's
about "locking", but it is certainly not about what we normally call
"locking" in Postgres.

So, firstly I suggest it doesn't belong in the "Locking" section, but
rather it should be under "Utility Commands" instead. Second, I think
it should say "Reduce transactional requirements" rather than "reduce
locking required".

I think there are further changes needed because of commits 175774d2932d
and 01c5de88ff2, but that's not what I'm on about here, though
discussion on that is welcome.

Contrary opinions?

It looks like this is moot anyway, I think the consensus is to remove
the feature and try again in release 11.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

It looks like this is moot anyway, I think the consensus is to remove
the feature and try again in release 11.

Oh, crap, I didn't realize it had gone badly.

Thanks,

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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