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?
...Robert
