Re: SQL-standard function body

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:51:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The point remains that exposing the function body's dependencies will
> constrain restore order far more than we are accustomed to see. It
> might be possible to build examples that flat out can't be restored,
> even granting that we teach pg_dump how to break dependency loops
> by first creating the function with empty body and later redefining
> it with the real body. (Admittedly, if that's possible then you
> likely could make it happen with views too. But somehow it seems
> more likely that people would create spaghetti dependencies for
> functions than views.)

Should we be okay releasing v14 without support for breaking function
dependency loops, or does that call for an open item?

-- example
create function f() returns int language sql return 1;
create function g() returns int language sql return f();
create or replace function f() returns int language sql return coalesce(2, g());

-- but when a view can break the cycle, pg_dump still does so
create view v as select 1 as c;
create function f() returns int language sql return coalesce(0, (select count(*) from v));
create or replace view v as select f() as c;