Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Here's a proposed patch.
I don't like this wording much, because "no user-defined objects"
is not a sufficient specification of what we are talking about.
You need to also capture the property that none of the system-
defined objects have been altered. Now that we explicitly support
things like altering the ACLs of system-defined objects, I do not
think it's okay to take that part for granted.
regards, tom lane
