On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On 2015-09-23 17:29:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Well, I can't vouch for what any human being on earth has thought >>> about over a twenty-year period. It's not intrinsically unreasonable >>> in my mind to want to alter an operator to point at a different >>> procedure. > >> Wouldn't we use plan invalidation to deal with that anyway? > > Plan invalidation wouldn't help, because the obsolete data exists > on-disk in stored rules. You'd have to run through the pg_rewrite > entries and update them. > > To my mind though, the lack of an ALTER OPERATOR SET FUNCTION command > is on par with our very limited ability to alter the contents of > an operator class. In principle it would be nice, but the practical > value is so small that it's not surprising it hasn't been done --- > and we shouldn't continue to hold the door open for a simple way of > implementing it when there are significant costs to doing so.
Also, it's not like this change couldn't be UN-done at a future point. I mean, Tom didn't like the flag I added aesthetically, but if we needed it, we could have it. Or we could engineer something else. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
