On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:09:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > On 27.04.21 18:16, Tom Lane wrote: > >> That's kind of a lot of complication, and inefficiency, for a corner case > >> that may never arise in practice. We've ignored the risk for default > >> expressions, and AFAIR have yet to receive any field complaints about it. > >> So maybe it's okay to do the same for SQL-style function bodies, at least > >> for now. > > >>> Another option would be that we disallow this at creation time. > > >> Don't like that one much. The backend shouldn't be in the business > >> of rejecting valid commands just because pg_dump might be unable > >> to cope later. > > > Since this is listed as an open item, I want to clarify that I'm > > currently not planning to work on this, based on this discussion. > > Certainly something to look into sometime later, but it's not in my > > plans right now. > > Right, I concur with moving it to the "won't fix" category.
Works for me.
