On 2005-10-26, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> writes:
>> On 2005-10-26, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Pretending it's the user's mistake isn't
>>> an answer that fits down my craw very well...
>
>> I'm not claiming it's the user's mistake. My point is that if the user
>> did in fact remove add_missing_from after creating views that depend on it,
>> then they have already run into a bug.
>
> No, you're looking at this in the wrong direction.
It's quite possible that in trimming my messages for posting I'm removing
too much of the context; is that the case? To recap:
- you pointed out that there was an incompatibility.
- I pointed out a way in which that incompatibility can be substantially
reduced in scope, from affecting "everyone who has views defined using
add_missing_from" to only affecting "everyone who has views defined using
add_missing_from but who has subsequently turned that off, in spite of the
bugs that they would encounter in doing so".
- you respond by saying there is an incompatibility.
Now, I don't know how I can possibly be clearer about this. I know that
changing the default add_missing_from causes an incompatibility. If you
prefer to keep it, rather than use a solution which will work for everyone
who (a) isn't already vulnerable to dump+restore problems and (b) will use
8.1's pg_dump to upgrade, then personally I couldn't care less. I'm just
surprised by the attitude.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
