On 11/21/14, 9:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Albe Laurenz writes:
There is also the possibility to add syntax like this:
CREATE OR REPLACE [FORCE] FUNCTION ...
What do you think about that? It would protect the casual user but allow
the expert to do it anyway.
I don't see any great attraction to th
Albe Laurenz writes:
> There is also the possibility to add syntax like this:
> CREATE OR REPLACE [FORCE] FUNCTION ...
> What do you think about that? It would protect the casual user but allow
> the expert to do it anyway.
I don't see any great attraction to that.
regar
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> > I don't think that there is a universally compelling right or wrong to
> > questions like this, it is more a matter of taste. Is it more important to
> > protect
> > the casual DBA from hurting himself or herself, or i
On 11/20/2014 02:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
I don't think that there is a universally compelling right or wrong to
questions like this, it is more a matter of taste. Is it more important to
protect
the casual DBA from hur
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> I don't think that there is a universally compelling right or wrong to
>> questions like this, it is more a matter of taste. Is it more important to
>> protect
>> the casual DBA from hurting himself or herself, or is
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I don't think that there is a universally compelling right or wrong to
> questions like this, it is more a matter of taste. Is it more important to
> protect
> the casual DBA from hurting himself or herself, or is it more important to
> prov
Tom Lane wrote:
> Antonin Houska writes:
>> Albe Laurenz wrote:
>>> Currently it is possible to change the behaviour of a function with
>>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION even if the function is part of an index
>>> definition.
>>>
>>> I think that should be forbidden, because it is very likely to c
Antonin Houska writes:
> Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> Currently it is possible to change the behaviour of a function with
>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION even if the function is part of an index
>> definition.
>>
>> I think that should be forbidden, because it is very likely to corrupt
>> the index. I
Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Currently it is possible to change the behaviour of a function with
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION even if the function is part of an index
> definition.
>
> I think that should be forbidden, because it is very likely to corrupt
> the index. I expect the objection that this
On 11/19/14 3:38 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
I think that should be forbidden, because it is very likely to corrupt
the index. I expect the objection that this would break valid use cases
where people know exactly what they are doing, but I believe that this
is a footgun for inexperienced users that
Currently it is possible to change the behaviour of a function with
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION even if the function is part of an index definition.
I think that should be forbidden, because it is very likely to corrupt
the index. I expect the objection that this would break valid use cases
where
11 matches
Mail list logo
