On 9/29/23 03:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes:
>> On 9/28/23 20:46, 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.
>
>> This issue comes up regularly (although far from often). Do we want to
>> put some comments right where would-be implementors would be sure to see it?
>
> Perhaps. I'd be kind of inclined to leave the "yet" out of "not yet
> implemented" in the error message, as that wording sounds like we just
> haven't got round to it.
I see your point, but should we be dissuading people who might want to
work on solving those problems? I intentionally did not document that
this syntax exists so the only people seeing the message are those who
just try it, and those wanting to write a patch like Danil did.
No one except you has said anything about this patch. I think it would
be good to commit it, wordsmithing aside.
--
Vik Fearing