Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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.
Hmm, true. Maybe we could raise a warning in that case as well :-)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
