On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
<euler@timbira.com> wrote:
> David E. Wheeler escreveu:
>> On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION
>>> is to keep the old proowner and proacl values, because that's what it
>>> always has done and nobody's complained. But I suppose a case could
>>> be made that you're completely replacing the function and so you should
>>> replace its ownership/permissions too. The CREATE FUNCTION reference
>>> page fails to specify either way, which is a documentation bug as well.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> The latter, I think. If I replace a function, I should be the new owner.
>> To me it makes no sense for someone else to own it.
>>
> Hmm... Using the same logic, if I add a new column should I be the table
> owner? If you're changing the function that is because you have permission.
>
> IMHO the owner should be preserved. In my mind, REPLACE is for changing the
> content and not the properties (name, owner, etc).
I disagree. I think David has this one right. I expect the results
of CREATE OR REPLACE to be the same as the result of CREATE would have
been had the object not existed.
...Robert
