Re: ALTER FUNCTION / STRICT

Tom Lane wrote:
> You realize of course that that can already be done with CREATE OR
> REPLACE FUNCTION.

Good point; that makes me less wary of breaking dependencies on existing
functions via ALTER, since in any case that can already be done.

>>Incidentally, is there a reason that DROP FUNCTION doesn't use the
>>FuncWithArgs node?
>
> Probably just historical, but why bother changing it?

It's just a small cleanup, but it seems inconsistent to me to have an
abstraction "function name with args" that is only used in some of the
situations where it's applicable. I know, I'm ornery about these things :)

Attached is a revised patch that also allows security definer and
function volatility to be changed. Barring any objections, I'll apply
this tomorrow (I'm going to take a closer look at the patch before
applying it -- there might be a few details I want to polish up...)

-Neil