Neil Conway wrote:
>
> Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> writes:
> > This sounds like a serious bug in our behaviour, and not something
> > we'd like to release.
>
> It's not ideal, I agree, but I *definately* don't think this is
> grounds for changing the release schedule.
Hey, I'm no fan of slowing the release schedule either.
Bug this is definitely sounding like a bug.
> > No real issue with the nicety for newbies, but am very concerned
> > about the lack of a dependancy check here.
>
> Well, how would you suggest we fix this? ISTM this is partially a
> result of the fact that we don't produce dependancy information for
> function bodies. While it might be possible to do so (in 7.4) for
> certain types of functions (e.g. for functions defined in SQL,
> PL/PgSQL, etc.), I can't see a general solution (e.g. for functions
> defined in C).
Absolutely *no* idea.
> And adding random hacks to get specific functions (e.g. nextval()) to
> work does not strike me as a very good idea.
Agreed. Random hacks aren't always a good approach.
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>
> --
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi