On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 13:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth.
>
>> +1. I would not make this change unless we have to force an initdb
>> anyway. And I really hope we don't, because I'm sort of hoping the
>> next 9.0 release will be rc1.
>
> Hm? I don't think that an initdb here would have any impact on whether
> we can call the next drop RC1 or not. We're talking about removing a
> single built-in entry in pg_proc --- it's one of the safest changes we
> could possibly make.
Great, I was afraid people would want another beta if we forced an
initdb. So a hearty +1 for fixing it and not doing another beta
(pending other bugs obviously).
