Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.0 Open Items

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.0 Open Items
Date: 2004-08-21 15:02:55
Message-ID: 21565.1093100575@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Eyinagho NewtonDate: 2004-08-21 17:42:47
Subject: Installing PostgreSQL in a Unix Platform
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2004-08-21 11:32:09
Subject: Re: repeatable system index corruption on 7.4.2 (SOLVED)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group