| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL-standard function body |
| Date: | 2021-05-10 15:09:43 |
| Message-ID: | 688709.1620659383@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2021-05-10 15:48:26 | Re: [PATCH] Full support for index LP_DEAD hint bits on standby |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-05-10 15:08:01 | Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft |