Re: Possible bug with ALTER LANGUAGE ... OWNER TO ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Jones <ejones(at)engineyard(dot)com>, PostgreSQL List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Possible bug with ALTER LANGUAGE ... OWNER TO ...
Date: 2008-12-09 23:50:31
Message-ID: 23287.1228866631@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Well, since CREATE LANGUAGE creates the functions internally, it does
> make a certain amount of sense that the functions are also handled
> internally when you do stuff to the language.

It *might* create the functions internally, or it might not. Admittedly
the present behavior is somewhat skewed by historical compatibility
considerations, but as long as the functions are independently creatable
objects I don't think it makes sense to have ALTER LANGUAGE messing with
them.

We'd be heading down a very slippery slope if we did that, too ---
should ALTER AGGREGATE touch the underlying functions? How about ALTER
CONVERSION propagating to the underlying function? Or ALTER TYPE to its
underlying I/O functions? Or ALTER DOMAIN to the underlying type? Etc.
If we did change this, how do we not break pg_dump's ability to
replicate a situation where tbe ownerships had been different?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Liraz Siri 2008-12-10 00:43:02 Re: Ubuntu for servers (was TurnKey PostgreSQL)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-12-09 23:40:45 Re: Possible bug with ALTER LANGUAGE ... OWNER TO ...