On Thu, 2025-09-04 at 11:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that recursive SQL functions are a tiny-minority use case
> and there's already a perfectly serviceable way to make them
> (ie use an old-style body), I seriously doubt that we'll do
> anything about this request.
Sure, but creating a dump that will fail to load is not good.
I don't have a smarter idea that dumping standard SQL functions
in two statements like you suggested...
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
