Re: SQL-standard function body

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:09:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > On 27.04.21 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That's kind of a lot of complication, and inefficiency, for a corner case
> >> that may never arise in practice. We've ignored the risk for default
> >> expressions, and AFAIR have yet to receive any field complaints about it.
> >> So maybe it's okay to do the same for SQL-style function bodies, at least
> >> for now.
>
> >>> Another option would be that we disallow this at creation time.
>
> >> Don't like that one much. The backend shouldn't be in the business
> >> of rejecting valid commands just because pg_dump might be unable
> >> to cope later.
>
> > Since this is listed as an open item, I want to clarify that I'm
> > currently not planning to work on this, based on this discussion.
> > Certainly something to look into sometime later, but it's not in my
> > plans right now.
>
> Right, I concur with moving it to the "won't fix" category.

Works for me.