Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> 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? > > Well, I'm willing to implement CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE if people > are agreed that that's a reasonable fix. I'm slightly worried about > the restore-could-change-ownership issue, but I think that's much less > likely to cause problems than embedding special cases for plpgsql in a > pile of places that we'll never find again.
All binary upgrade code is clearly marked as binary_upgrade (in fact you complained about my marking them more clearly in tqual.c), so I don't think we are going to lose it. I have answered the other questions by replying to Robert Haas. -- 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
