"David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:15 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> TBH, I find this proposal to be useless nannyism.

> Isn't preventing a dump-restore hazard sufficient reason to do this?

No, I don't think so.  If you're not being very careful about revising
functions used in indexes, you are going to have problems a lot sooner
than some future dump/restore cycle.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply via email to