Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >>> Well, I was asking why you labeled it "must fix" rather than "should > >>> fix". ?I am fine with the pg_regress.c change. > > > >> Yeah, if it makes life easier for other people, I say we go for it. > > > > I don't think that the way to fix this is to have an ugly kluge in > > pg_dump and another ugly kluge in pg_regress (and no doubt ugly kluges > > elsewhere by the time all the dust settles). > > IMO, the non-ugly kludges are (1) implement CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE > and (2) revert the original patch. Do you want to do one of those > (which?) or do you have another idea?
For #2, if you mean the pg_dump.c plpgsql hack for pg_migrator, that is not an option unless you want to break pg_migrator for 9.0. If you implement #1, why would you have pg_dump issue CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE? We don't do the "OR REPLACE" part for any other object I can think of, so why would pg_dump do it for languages by default? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
