Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I'm also a bit dubious of the assumption in RemoveOperatorById that an >> operator can't be its own negator. Yeah, that should not be the case, >> but if it is the case the deletion will fail outright.
> So what? We've never guaranteed that things are going to work if you > start by corrupting the catalogs, and I wouldn't pick this as a place > to start. I would not be worried except that it breaks a case that used to work, as your test below demonstrates. >> We could resolve both of these issues by changing the semantics of >> OprUpdate so that it unconditionally does a CommandCounterIncrement >> after each update that it performs. IMO that would be a lot simpler >> and more bulletproof; it'd allow removal of a lot of these >> overly-tightly-reasoned cases. > I tried this, but it did not seem to work. Odd. If you post the revised patch, I'll try to chase down what's wrong. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers