Re: Internal error with types changes and prepared statements

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 20:27, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I'm inclined to shrug and say don't do that. We could perhaps
> track all the dependencies of a prepared statement as we do
> for views, but it would add a lot of overhead that's not there
> today, and for what? All we'd accomplish is to give a cleaner
> error message. I don't think people should expect the above
> to somehow work --- if it did, that would imply assorted
> security holes, because the statement would no longer mean
> what it meant before.

That's good for me, it gives a clear idea about what to do.

Thank you very much

-- Daniele