On Mar 27, 2016, at 7:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I do not know whether this would be a meaningful improvement for
> common use-cases, though.
It would certainly be a step forward over the current situation. It would mean that a specific imaginable use-case
(insertinga new enum value, then populating a dimension table for it) would have to be done as two migrations rather
thanone, but that is much more doable in most tools than having a migration run without a transaction at all.
--
-- Christophe Pettus xof@thebuild.com