On 10/1/09 9:26 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/1 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
David E. Wheeler escreveu:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
I disagree. I think David has this one right. I expect the results
of CREATE OR REPLACE to be the same as the result of CREATE would have
been had the object not existed.
If so, it seems to me CREATE OR REPLACE is equivalent to a
On Oct 2, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
But in fact CREATE OR REPLACE is *not* meant to be the same as DROP
followed by CREATE. What it is meant to do is allow you to replace
the
implementation of the function while existing callers see it as still
being the same function. Thus we
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Caleb Welton cwel...@greenplum.com wrote:
Right - so the subtle point here is that ALTER means something
different from CREATE OR REPLACE. ALTER means to make a
modification to something; to change it; to adjust one particular
property of the object without
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
Okay, this convinces me otherwise. But is it not in fact the case that
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION doesn't expire the old version of the
function in the cache of other processes?
It is not.
Don't those processes have
to reconnect in order
On Oct 2, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The ideal is that backends will start using the new function
implementation on the next call after the REPLACE commits (but any
evaluations already in progress must of course continue with the text
they have). We have been gradually getting closer to
I wrote:
Whichever way you think it should work, there's a bug here that goes
back several versions, and I rather suspect we may have the same issue
for other REPLACE-type commands ...
BTW, I looked around for related problems and don't see any. We only
have CREATE OR REPLACE for functions,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION
is to keep the old proowner and proacl values, because that's what it
always has done and nobody's complained.
+1.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
2009/10/2 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION
is to keep the old proowner and proacl values, because that's what it
always has done and nobody's complained.
+1.
+1
Pavel
Whilst fooling with the default ACLs patch I noticed that there's a
pre-existing bug in CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION. It will let you
replace a function if pg_proc_ownercheck passes, which these days
does *not* mean that you are exactly the role mentioned in
pg_proc.proowner; it only means you are
On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE
FUNCTION
is to keep the old proowner and proacl values, because that's what it
always has done and nobody's complained. But I suppose a case could
be made that you're completely
David E. Wheeler escreveu:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION
is to keep the old proowner and proacl values, because that's what it
always has done and nobody's complained. But I suppose a case could
be made
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
David E. Wheeler escreveu:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION
is to keep the old proowner and proacl values, because that's what
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
David E. Wheeler escreveu:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION
is to keep the old proowner and proacl values,
2009/10/1 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
David E. Wheeler escreveu:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION
Robert Haas wrote:
2009/10/1 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
David E. Wheeler escreveu:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My inclination is to think that the right behavior
2009/10/1 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Robert Haas wrote:
2009/10/1 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
David E. Wheeler escreveu:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My
17 matches
Mail list logo
