Re: 8.0 Open Items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 8.0 Open Items
Date
Msg-id 21565.1093100575@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8.0 Open Items  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Responses Re: 8.0 Open Items  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Okay, I don't want to force an initdb just for this either.  But if we
>> do one for other reasons, it's toast.

> I don't see why an initdb is required: if we want to remove it, we can 
> replace the function's implementation with elog(ERROR, "this function 
> has been removed"), or the like. The difference between doing that much 
> and actually removing the function's catalog entry is pretty negligible 
> from the user's POV.

No, not at all.  A nonfunctional catalog entry gets in the way of the
user replacing the function, should he wish to do that.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: repeatable system index corruption on 7.4.2 (SOLVED)
Next
From: Eyinagho Newton
Date:
Subject: Installing PostgreSQL in a Unix Platform