Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> It's worth noting that both versions still leave the pg_trgm opclasses a >> bit different from a fresh install, because the added operators are >> "loose" in the opfamily rather than being bound into the opclass. This >> hasn't got any real functional effect, but if you were feeling paranoid >> you could worry about whether the two different states could cause >> problems for future versions of the update script. As far as I can see, >> the only thing we could realistically do about this with the tools at >> hand is to change pg_trgm's install script so that it also creates the >> new-in-9.1 entries "loose". That seems a tad ugly, but depending on >> where you stand on the paranoia scale you might think it's a good idea. >> There is definitely no point in that refinement unless we update the >> function parameter lists, though. >> >> Comments?
> I think we should try to make the state match as closely as possible, > no matter how you got there. Otherwise, I think we're storing up a > host of future pain for ourselves. Well, if you're willing to hold your nose for the "UPDATE pg_proc" hack, we can make it so. 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