Re: SQL-standard function body

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Noah Misch
Тема Re: SQL-standard function body
Дата
Msg-id 20210511074913.GA3210220@rfd.leadboat.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: SQL-standard function body  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:09:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > On 27.04.21 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That's kind of a lot of complication, and inefficiency, for a corner case
> >> that may never arise in practice.  We've ignored the risk for default
> >> expressions, and AFAIR have yet to receive any field complaints about it.
> >> So maybe it's okay to do the same for SQL-style function bodies, at least
> >> for now.
> 
> >>> Another option would be that we disallow this at creation time.
> 
> >> Don't like that one much.  The backend shouldn't be in the business
> >> of rejecting valid commands just because pg_dump might be unable
> >> to cope later.
> 
> > Since this is listed as an open item, I want to clarify that I'm 
> > currently not planning to work on this, based on this discussion. 
> > Certainly something to look into sometime later, but it's not in my 
> > plans right now.
> 
> Right, I concur with moving it to the "won't fix" category.

Works for me.



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: wal stats questions
Следующее
От: Julien Rouhaud
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements