Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It's worth noting that both versions still leave the pg_trgm opclasses a
>> bit different from a fresh install, because the added operators are
>> "loose" in the opfamily rather than being bound into the opclass. This
>> hasn't got any real functional effect, but if you were feeling paranoid
>> you could worry about whether the two different states could cause
>> problems for future versions of the update script. As far as I can see,
>> the only thing we could realistically do about this with the tools at
>> hand is to change pg_trgm's install script so that it also creates the
>> new-in-9.1 entries "loose". That seems a tad ugly, but depending on
>> where you stand on the paranoia scale you might think it's a good idea.
>> There is definitely no point in that refinement unless we update the
>> function parameter lists, though.
>>
>> Comments?
> I think we should try to make the state match as closely as possible,
> no matter how you got there. Otherwise, I think we're storing up a
> host of future pain for ourselves.
Well, if you're willing to hold your nose for the "UPDATE pg_proc" hack,
we can make it so.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
