Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> Well, I'm willing to implement CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE if people
> are agreed that that's a reasonable fix. I'm slightly worried about
> the restore-could-change-ownership issue, but I think that's much less
> likely to cause problems than embedding special cases for plpgsql in a
> pile of places that we'll never find again.
All binary upgrade code is clearly marked as binary_upgrade (in fact you
complained about my marking them more clearly in tqual.c), so I don't
think we are going to lose it. I have answered the other questions by
replying to Robert Haas.
-- 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. +
