On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:51:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The point remains that exposing the function body's dependencies will > constrain restore order far more than we are accustomed to see. It > might be possible to build examples that flat out can't be restored, > even granting that we teach pg_dump how to break dependency loops > by first creating the function with empty body and later redefining > it with the real body. (Admittedly, if that's possible then you > likely could make it happen with views too. But somehow it seems > more likely that people would create spaghetti dependencies for > functions than views.)
Should we be okay releasing v14 without support for breaking function dependency loops, or does that call for an open item? -- example create function f() returns int language sql return 1; create function g() returns int language sql return f(); create or replace function f() returns int language sql return coalesce(2, g()); -- but when a view can break the cycle, pg_dump still does so create view v as select 1 as c; create function f() returns int language sql return coalesce(0, (select count(*) from v)); create or replace view v as select f() as c;
