On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: > David E. Wheeler escreveu: >> On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION >>> is to keep the old proowner and proacl values, because that's what it >>> always has done and nobody's complained. But I suppose a case could >>> be made that you're completely replacing the function and so you should >>> replace its ownership/permissions too. The CREATE FUNCTION reference >>> page fails to specify either way, which is a documentation bug as well. >>> >>> Comments? >> >> The latter, I think. If I replace a function, I should be the new owner. >> To me it makes no sense for someone else to own it. >> > Hmm... Using the same logic, if I add a new column should I be the table > owner? If you're changing the function that is because you have permission. > > IMHO the owner should be preserved. In my mind, REPLACE is for changing the > content and not the properties (name, owner, etc).
I disagree. I think David has this one right. I expect the results of CREATE OR REPLACE to be the same as the result of CREATE would have been had the object not existed. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
