| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Yushu Chen <gentcys(at)gmail(dot)com>, "katja(dot)henke(at)foo(dot)ag" <katja(dot)henke(at)foo(dot)ag>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19034: Recursive function with sql_body can replace an existing function but can not be created on it's own |
| Date: | 2025-09-05 12:55:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYfD-JE8svtfJcgCHce=8ag5000Gms4hr=JXH+L8CWhPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Friday, September 5, 2025, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-09-04 at 11:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Given that recursive SQL functions are a tiny-minority use case
> > and there's already a perfectly serviceable way to make them
> > (ie use an old-style body), I seriously doubt that we'll do
> > anything about this request.
>
> Sure, but creating a dump that will fail to load is not good.
> I don't have a smarter idea that dumping standard SQL functions
> in two statements like you suggested...
>
When resolving the dependency graph for such a function can we prevent the
oid of the parent and the oid of the child being the same value? Prohibit
direct self-references so it fails even if you use “or replace”.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-05 14:18:45 | Re: BUG #19034: Recursive function with sql_body can replace an existing function but can not be created on it's own |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2025-09-05 12:17:33 | Re: BUG #19034: Recursive function with sql_body can replace an existing function but can not be created on it's own |