Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't think that the way to fix this is to have an ugly kluge in
>> pg_dump and another ugly kluge in pg_regress (and no doubt ugly kluges
>> elsewhere by the time all the dust settles).
> IMO, the non-ugly kludges are (1) implement CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE
> and (2) revert the original patch. Do you want to do one of those
> (which?) or do you have another idea?
Well, I'm willing to implement CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE if people
are agreed that that's a reasonable fix. I'm slightly worried about
the restore-could-change-ownership issue, but I think that's much less
likely to cause problems than embedding special cases for plpgsql in a
pile of places that we'll never find again.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
