"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:15 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> TBH, I find this proposal to be useless nannyism.
> Isn't preventing a dump-restore hazard sufficient reason to do this?
No, I don't think so. If you're not being very careful about revising
functions used in indexes, you are going to have problems a lot sooner
than some future dump/restore cycle.
regards, tom lane