Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >>> Well, I was asking why you labeled it "must fix" rather than "should
> >>> fix". ?I am fine with the pg_regress.c change.
> >
> >> Yeah, if it makes life easier for other people, I say we go for it.
> >
> > I don't think that the way to fix this is to have an ugly kluge in
> > pg_dump and another ugly kluge in pg_regress (and no doubt ugly kluges
> > elsewhere by the time all the dust settles).
>
> IMO, the non-ugly kludges are (1) implement CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE
> and (2) revert the original patch. Do you want to do one of those
> (which?) or do you have another idea?
For #2, if you mean the pg_dump.c plpgsql hack for pg_migrator, that is
not an option unless you want to break pg_migrator for 9.0.
If you implement #1, why would you have pg_dump issue CREATE OR REPLACE
LANGUAGE? We don't do the "OR REPLACE" part for any other object I can
think of, so why would pg_dump do it for languages by default?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.comPG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard
drive,Christ can be your backup. +
