2008/11/30 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> There are two ways to fix this, both having some validity:
>> 1. We create a second version of pg_get_function_arguments() that produces
>> arguments without default values decoration. This is probably the
>> technically sound thing to do.
I'll prepare new patch with this change.
> Yes. I think that the argument for allowing parameter names in commands
> like ALTER FUNCTION is that the user might consider them part of the
> function's identity. This can hardly be claimed for default values.
> Also, there's a third possibility: we could revert the decision to allow
> pg_dump to depend on pg_get_function_arguments in the first place. That
> was really the lazy man's approach to begin with. The more we allow
> pg_dump to depend on backend functions that work in a SnapshotNow world,
> the more risk we have of producing inconsistent dumps.
I don't understand well. Transactions is spanish village for me. So
there will be some finalizing necessary from You or Peter.
> regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2008-11-30 21:03:29|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: Remove inappropriate memory context switch in|
|Previous:||From: David Rowley||Date: 2008-11-30 19:11:10|
|Subject: Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance|