Don't force a table rewrite when appending extra values to the end of an enum. #2819
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jycor
approved these changes
Jan 16, 2025
Contributor
jycor
left a comment
jycor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM; not sure if there's a way to test if a query does trigger a rewrite
This was referenced Jan 18, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adding extra strings to the end of an enum type doesn't change the values for any of the existing strings. A table rewrite isn't necessary in this case.
If a specific table implementation does need to be rewritten when an enum type changes this way, they can still implement
ShouldRewriteTablein order to force a rewrite anyway.