| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL-standard function body |
| Date: | 2021-04-18 21:15:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20210418211505.GA7256@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 03:08:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> > Should we be okay releasing v14 without support for breaking function
> > dependency loops, or does that call for an open item?
>
> Oh! That should definitely be an open item. It doesn't seem
> that hard to do something similar to what we do for views,
> i.e. create a dummy function and replace it later.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-18 21:33:38 | Re: SQL-standard function body |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2021-04-18 20:42:11 | Re: Planning time grows exponentially with levels of nested views |