Re: SQL-standard function body

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.

            regards, tom lane