Re: 8.0 Open Items
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: 8.0 Open Items |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 21565.1093100575@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: 8.0 Open Items (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: 8.0 Open Items
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Okay, I don't want to force an initdb just for this either. But if we
>> do one for other reasons, it's toast.
> I don't see why an initdb is required: if we want to remove it, we can
> replace the function's implementation with elog(ERROR, "this function
> has been removed"), or the like. The difference between doing that much
> and actually removing the function's catalog entry is pretty negligible
> from the user's POV.
No, not at all. A nonfunctional catalog entry gets in the way of the
user replacing the function, should he wish to do that.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: