* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> > That is exactly what I think is "to big a promise" - I don't think we=
=20
> > can actually guarantee that this will fix the dump/restore issue (well=
=20
> > the dump might load but say the 30000 lines of plpgsql using dynamic SQ=
L=20
> > will still be broken).
>=20
> Yeah, that's a mighty good point. We are certainly not going to try to
> fix the contents of function bodies. The only things we could possibly
> fix that we don't handle today (when using the newer pg_dump) are
> references in views, check constraint expressions, etc.
Erm, I don't know that we deal with function-body problems today, even
when using the newer version of pg_dump, do we? Don't we set
check_function_bodies off, meaning they won't hit the problem till they
try to run the function? We use $ quoting for the function bodies
entirely otherwise...
Thanks,
Stephen