Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Eyinagho Newton||Date: 2004-08-21 17:42:47|
|Subject: Installing PostgreSQL in a Unix Platform|
|Previous:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2004-08-21 11:32:09|
|Subject: Re: repeatable system index corruption on 7.4.2 (SOLVED)|