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
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 ... |