* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> Gevik Babakhani wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 23:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Why are we debating this? It won't get accepted anyway, because the
> > > whole thing is silly. Show me one other object type that we issue
> > > such warnings for, or anyone else who has even suggested that we should.
>
> No other object type has the ability to require you to stop the server
> and start a standalone backend to fix the mistake, which is what makes
> this thing unique.
Eh? Isn't that the case if you manage to remove the superuser bit from
everyone? Yet it's allowed, I'm not even sure there's a warning.. In
any case, what we do there can serve as precedent.
Thanks,
Stephen
