nviado:* lunes, 3 de abril de 2017 11:21 p. m.
> *Para:* Vicky Vergara
> *Cc:* pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> *Asunto:* Re: [HACKERS] Instead of DROP function use UPDATE pg_proc in an
> upgrade extension script
>
>
>
> 2017-04-04 6:17 GMT+02:00 Vicky Vergara :
>
>>
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Vicky Vergara 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 c
sql-hackers@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [HACKERS] Instead of DROP function use UPDATE pg_proc in an upgrade
extension script
2017-04-04 6:17 GMT+02:00 Vicky Vergara
mailto:vicky_verg...@hotmail.com>>:
Hello,
When creating an extension upgrade sql script, because the function does not
have
Enviado: lunes, 3 de abril de 2017 11:28 p. m.
Para: Vicky Vergara
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [HACKERS] Instead of DROP function use UPDATE pg_proc in an upgrade
extension script
>>>>> "Vicky" == Vicky Vergara writes:
Vicky> UPDATE pg_proc SET [...]
> "Vicky" == Vicky Vergara writes:
Vicky> UPDATE pg_proc SET [...]
Vicky> So, I want to know how "safe" can you consider the second
Vicky> method, and what kind of other objects do I need to test besides
Vicky> views.
Speaking from personal experience (I did this in the upgrade script f
2017-04-04 6:17 GMT+02:00 Vicky Vergara :
>
> Hello,
>
>
> When creating an extension upgrade sql script, because the function does
> not have the same parameter names and/or parameters type and/or the result
> types changes, there is the need to drop the function because otherwise the
> CREATE OR
Hello,
When creating an extension upgrade sql script, because the function does not
have the same parameter names and/or parameters type and/or the result types
changes, there is the need to drop the function because otherwise the CREATE OR
REPLACE of the new signature will fail.
So for exa
