On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 04:19:52PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 02:07:08PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > * We can't use CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION in the upgrade script because > > > that intentionally doesn't let you change the result type of an existing > > > function. I considered doing a manual UPDATE of the pg_proc entry, but > > > then remembered why CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION is picky about this: the > > > result type, including set-ness, is embedded in the parse tree of any view > > > referencing the function. So AFAICS we need to actually drop and recreate > > > the citext regexp_matches() functions in the upgrade script. That means > > > "ALTER EXTENSION citext UPDATE" will fail if these functions are being > > > used in any views. That's annoying but I see no way around it. (We > > > could have the upgrade script do DROP CASCADE, but that seems way too > > > destructive.) > > > > I think we do need to have the upgrade script drop/recreate without > > cascade. Then, users can "alter extension upgrade", note the > > problematic views (which should be part of the error message), drop > > them, then retry the extension update and re-create their views. This > > is necessarily a manual procedure -- I don't think we can re-create > > views using the function automatically. CASCADE seems pretty dangerous. > > Just a reality check but this will break a pg_upgrade, and will not be > detected by --check.
Actually, pg_upgrade might be OK because the views would be recreated with the new functions already installed. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers