On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Vicky Vergara <vicky_verg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > you answered so fast that I know I am stepping into dangerous grounds. > > But I would like to know more about your experience. > > Any links that you can give me to read about the code and/or issues > regarding the ip4r experience?
I can't comment on that, but in general I don't think there's an issue if (1) your UPDATE statement contains no bugs and (2) the DROP statement would have succeeded without CASCADE. The problem is when there's stuff depending on the existing function definition - such as views. Even then it may work if the dependencies are such that the new definition is compatible enough for purposes of the dependent objects, but if not then you've got trouble. To put this another way, if it were safe for CREATE OR REPLACE to succeed here, we would have made it succeed. -- 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
