Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax checking at create time) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax checking at create time)
Date
Msg-id 17758.1125692972@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I feel the best idea for a non-initdb-forcing solution is to hardwire
>> the template knowledge into CREATE LANGUAGE for 8.1 (with of course the
>> intention of doing my full original proposal for 8.2).  With that in
>> place, the only messiness from loading old dumps is that you would have
>> handler function definitions in public --- but they wouldn't be used
>> (the actual languages would rely on handlers in pg_catalog) and could be
>> dropped easily.

> Ok, that sounds good. Maybe have pg_dump issue a warning about the 
> useless handler funcs left lying around?

Again, you're imagining that we can retroactively fix existing pg_dumps.
A pg_dump that's aware of this change will simply not dump handlers at
all --- so it doesn't need to issue any warning.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples