On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Hm, patch looks okay, but while eyeballing it I started to wonder
>>> why in the world is pg_get_publication_tables marked prosecdef?
>>> If that has any consequences at all, they're probably bad.
>>> There are exactly no other built-in functions that have that set.
>
>> Should we add that to the opr_sanity tests?
>
> Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I can imagine that someday
> there will be prosecdef built-in functions ... but probably, there
> would never be so many that maintaining the expected-results list
> would be hard.
And if it is, then we remove the test.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
