Tom Lane wrote: > I actually was expecting the above example to show me the user function, > which I was then going to rant about being a lie. But the actual > behavior is even worse than that. > > There is not anything that is not broken about HEAD's behavior, > and the sooner we admit that the sooner we can get to a fix. > Slicing the categorization more finely or in different ways is > not going to improve matters: the concept that there is a categorization > that will make it hide requested objects is wrong to begin with.
You can say it is broken, but what is your proposal? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
