| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ash M <makmarath(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name |
| Date: | 2019-02-19 16:45:59 |
| Message-ID: | 32561.1550594759@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | Postg범퍼카 토토SQL : Postg범퍼카 토토SQL 메일 링리스트 : 2019-02-19 이후 PGSQL-BUGS 16:45 pgsql-hackers |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, exactly. Not only do I not feel a need to change this behavior
>> in the back branches, but the original patch is *also* an API change,
>> in that it changes the behavior of what appears to be a well-defined
>> boolean parameter. The fact that none of the call sites found in
>> core today would care doesn't change that; you'd still be risking
>> breaking extensions, and/or future back-patches.
> Extensions calling those functions with old true/false values probably
> won't get any warning or error during compile. Is is something we
> should worry about or is it enough to keep the same behavior in this
> case?
Yeah, I thought about that. We can avoid such problems by assigning
the enum values such that 0 and 1 correspond to the old behaviors.
I didn't look to see if the proposed patch does it like that right
now, but it should be an easy fix if not.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andre Piwoni | 2019-02-19 17:25:57 | Re: BUG #15638: pg_basebackup with --wal-method=stream incorrectly generates WAL segment created during backup |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-02-19 16:00:26 | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-19 16:48:16 | Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-19 16:41:33 | Re: PGAdmin 4 don't refresh server info after restarting |