Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name

David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 16:09, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> FWIW, it makes me a bit uneasy to change this function signature in
>> back-branches if that's the intention as I suspect that it gets used
>> in extensions.. For HEAD that's fine of course.

> I wondered about this too and questioned Tom about it above. There
> was no response.

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd asked a question.

> I just assumed Tom didn't think it was worth fiddling with in back-branches.

Yeah, exactly. Not only do I not feel a need to change this behavior
in the back branches, but the original patch is *also* an API change,
in that it changes the behavior of what appears to be a well-defined
boolean parameter. The fact that none of the call sites found in
core today would care doesn't change that; you'd still be risking
breaking extensions, and/or future back-patches.

So I think targeting this for HEAD only is fine.

regards, tom lane