Neil Conway wrote: > > Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This sounds like a serious bug in our behaviour, and not something > > we'd like to release. > > It's not ideal, I agree, but I *definately* don't think this is > grounds for changing the release schedule.
Hey, I'm no fan of slowing the release schedule either. Bug this is definitely sounding like a bug. > > No real issue with the nicety for newbies, but am very concerned > > about the lack of a dependancy check here. > > Well, how would you suggest we fix this? ISTM this is partially a > result of the fact that we don't produce dependancy information for > function bodies. While it might be possible to do so (in 7.4) for > certain types of functions (e.g. for functions defined in SQL, > PL/PgSQL, etc.), I can't see a general solution (e.g. for functions > defined in C). Absolutely *no* idea. > And adding random hacks to get specific functions (e.g. nextval()) to > work does not strike me as a very good idea. Agreed. Random hacks aren't always a good approach. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > Cheers, > > Neil > > -- > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
