Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> writes:
> On 2005-10-26, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Pretending it's the user's mistake isn't
>> an answer that fits down my craw very well...
> I'm not claiming it's the user's mistake. My point is that if the user
> did in fact remove add_missing_from after creating views that depend on it,
> then they have already run into a bug.
No, you're looking at this in the wrong direction. The problem is that
the user hasn't had to do anything so far, because add_missing_from has
defaulted to true in every prior release. So he could have been sailing
along with views written in the old style up to now, and not noticed any
problem. We are creating the problem by changing the default behavior
... or at least, that's how it will look to people who get burnt by this.
After sleeping on it, I feel that we should probably just fix the code
(to make the problem go away going forward) and document the possible
need to turn on add_missing_from to load old dump files as an
incompatibility. We've had worse ones.
regards, tom lane