Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm also a bit dubious of the assumption in RemoveOperatorById that an
>> operator can't be its own negator. Yeah, that should not be the case,
>> but if it is the case the deletion will fail outright.
> So what? We've never guaranteed that things are going to work if you
> start by corrupting the catalogs, and I wouldn't pick this as a place
> to start.
I would not be worried except that it breaks a case that used to work,
as your test below demonstrates.
>> We could resolve both of these issues by changing the semantics of
>> OprUpdate so that it unconditionally does a CommandCounterIncrement
>> after each update that it performs. IMO that would be a lot simpler
>> and more bulletproof; it'd allow removal of a lot of these
>> overly-tightly-reasoned cases.
> I tried this, but it did not seem to work.
Odd. If you post the revised patch, I'll try to chase down what's wrong.
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
