Originally committed as 15bc038f (plus some follow-ups), this was
reverted in 28e07270 due to a problem discovered in parallel
workers. This new version corrects that problem by sending the
list of uncommitted enum values to parallel workers.
Here follows the original commit message describing the change:
To prevent possibly breaking indexes on enum columns, we must keep
uncommitted enum values from getting stored in tables, unless we
can be sure that any such column is new in the current transaction.
Formerly, we enforced this by disallowing ALTER TYPE ... ADD VALUE
from being executed at all in a transaction block, unless the target
enum type had been created in the current transaction. This patch
removes that restriction, and instead insists that an uncommitted enum
value can't be referenced unless it belongs to an enum type created
in the same transaction as the value. Per discussion, this should be
a bit less onerous. It does require each function that could possibly
return a new enum value to SQL operations to check this restriction,
but there aren't so many of those that this seems unmaintainable.
Author: Andrew Dunstan and Tom Lane, with parallel query fix by Thomas Munro
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D0Ei7g6PaNTbcmAh9tCRahQrk%3Dr5ZWLD-jr7hXweYX3yg%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4075.1459088427%40sss.pgh.pa.us
This reverts commit 15bc038f9, along with the followon commits 1635e80d3
and 984c92074 that tried to clean up the problems exposed by bug #14825.
The result was incomplete because it failed to address parallel-query
requirements. With 10.0 release so close upon us, now does not seem like
the time to be adding more code to fix that. I hope we can un-revert this
code and add the missing parallel query support during the v11 cycle.
Back-patch to v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org
The blacklist mechanism added by the preceding commit directly fixes
most of the practical cases that the same-transaction test was meant
to cover. What remains is use-cases like
begin;
create type e as enum('x');
alter type e add value 'y';
-- use 'y' somehow
commit;
However, because the same-transaction test is heuristic, it fails on
small variants of that, such as renaming the type or changing its
owner. Rather than try to explain the behavior to users, let's
remove it and just have a rule that the newly added value can't be
used before being committed, full stop. Perhaps later it will be
worth the implementation effort and overhead to have a more accurate
test for type-was-created-in-this-transaction. We'll wait for some
field experience with v10 before deciding to do that.
Back-patch to v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Commit 15bc038f9 allowed ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE to be executed inside
transaction blocks, by disallowing the use of the added value later
in the same transaction, except under limited circumstances. However,
the test for "limited circumstances" was heuristic and could reject
references to enum values that were created during CREATE TYPE AS ENUM,
not just later. This breaks the use-case of restoring pg_dump scripts
in a single transaction, as reported in bug #14825 from Balazs Szilfai.
We can improve this by keeping a "blacklist" table of enum value OIDs
created by ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE during the current transaction. Any
visible-but-uncommitted value whose OID is not in the blacklist must
have been created by CREATE TYPE AS ENUM, and can be used safely
because it could not have a lifespan shorter than its parent enum type.
This change also removes the restriction that a renamed enum value
can't be used before being committed (unless it was on the blacklist).
Andrew Dunstan, with cosmetic improvements by me.
Back-patch to v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170922185904.1448.16585@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Not much to be said about this patch: it does what it says on the tin.
In passing, rename AlterEnumStmt.skipIfExists to skipIfNewValExists
to clarify what it actually does. In the discussion of this patch
we considered supporting other similar options, such as IF EXISTS
on the type as a whole or IF NOT EXISTS on the target name. This
patch doesn't actually add any such feature, but it might happen later.
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker, reviewed by Emre Hasegeli
Discussion: <CAO=2mx6uvgPaPDf-rHqG8=1MZnGyVDMQeh8zS4euRyyg4D35OQ@mail.gmail.com>
To prevent possibly breaking indexes on enum columns, we must keep
uncommitted enum values from getting stored in tables, unless we
can be sure that any such column is new in the current transaction.
Formerly, we enforced this by disallowing ALTER TYPE ... ADD VALUE
from being executed at all in a transaction block, unless the target
enum type had been created in the current transaction. This patch
removes that restriction, and instead insists that an uncommitted enum
value can't be referenced unless it belongs to an enum type created
in the same transaction as the value. Per discussion, this should be
a bit less onerous. It does require each function that could possibly
return a new enum value to SQL operations to check this restriction,
but there aren't so many of those that this seems unmaintainable.
Andrew Dunstan and Tom Lane
Discussion: <4075.1459088427@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Normally it is unsafe to allow ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE in a transaction block,
because instances of the value could be added to indexes later in the same
transaction, and then they would still be accessible even if the
transaction rolls back. However, we can allow this if the enum type itself
was created in the current transaction, because then any such indexes would
have to go away entirely on rollback.
The reason for allowing this is to support pg_upgrade's new usage of
pg_restore --single-transaction: in --binary-upgrade mode, pg_dump emits
enum types as a succession of ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE commands so that it can
preserve the values' OIDs. The support is a bit limited, so we'll leave
it undocumented.
Andres Freund
Produce a NOTICE when the label already exists, for consistency with other
CREATE IF NOT EXISTS commands. Also, fix the code so it produces something
more user-friendly than an index violation when the label already exists.
This not incidentally enables making a regression test that the previous
patch didn't make for fear of exposing an unpredictable OID in the results.
Also some wordsmithing on the documentation.
If the label is already in the enum the statement becomes a no-op.
This will reduce the pain that comes from our not allowing this
operation inside a transaction block.
Andrew Dunstan, reviewed by Tom Lane and Magnus Hagander.
After much expenditure of effort, we've got this to the point where the
performance penalty is pretty minimal in typical cases.
Andrew Dunstan, reviewed by Brendan Jurd, Dean Rasheed, and Tom Lane
Thomas Munro
Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan