> Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes:
> > Here's a patch I put together. I thought the Oracle-style 'CREATE OR
> > REPLACE FUNCTION' syntax might be useful to those doing lots of function
> > creation/development. It is against the 7.1.3 source.
>
> Hmm. There are a couple of things that are a tad ugly about this patch
> --- you should be heap_update'ing the pg_proc entry, not doing a delete
> and insert --- but the main thing I don't like is that there's no
> checking to ensure that the function return type doesn't change. We
> can't allow that; it'd break stored views etc that use the function.
>
> It'd probably also be a good idea to insist that the replacer be the
> same as the original owner. (Possibly RemoveFunction does that for you
> in the patch as it stands, but it'll need an explicit test if you go
> the update route.)
>
> BTW, I've been assuming that when we got around to providing a
> capability like this, it'd be via an "ALTER FUNCTION" kind of
> statement. Does anyone have a strong feeling pro or con on whether
> "CREATE OR REPLACE" is a preferable approach? It doesn't seem to
> fit with the spirit of our other maintenance commands, but maybe
> we should just bow down before the Oracle and do it their way...
I assume it preserves the function's OID? That is something we have
needed for a while because it would keep oid references to the function
the same, or at least we should give people the option of keeping the
oid.
On the REPLACE/ALTER discussion, we have CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE.
Seems ALTER FUNCTION is the way to go. Adding a REPLACE toplevel
keyword for this feature just seems too harsh.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
