| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.0 Open Items |
| Date: | 2004-08-21 15:02:55 |
| Message-ID: | 21565.1093100575@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Okay, I don't want to force an initdb just for this either. But if we
>> do one for other reasons, it's toast.
> I don't see why an initdb is required: if we want to remove it, we can
> replace the function's implementation with elog(ERROR, "this function
> has been removed"), or the like. The difference between doing that much
> and actually removing the function's catalog entry is pretty negligible
> from the user's POV.
No, not at all. A nonfunctional catalog entry gets in the way of the
user replacing the function, should he wish to do that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eyinagho Newton | 2004-08-21 17:42:47 | Installing PostgreSQL in a Unix Platform |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-08-21 11:32:09 | Re: repeatable system index corruption on 7.4.2 (SOLVED) |