Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes:
> 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.
FWIW I'm +1 on this patch, and with Tom on dropping the "yet". To me it
makes it sound like we intend to implement it soon (fsvo).
- ilmari