On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Hm, patch looks okay, but while eyeballing it I started to wonder >>> why in the world is pg_get_publication_tables marked prosecdef? >>> If that has any consequences at all, they're probably bad. >>> There are exactly no other built-in functions that have that set. > >> Should we add that to the opr_sanity tests? > > Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I can imagine that someday > there will be prosecdef built-in functions ... but probably, there > would never be so many that maintaining the expected-results list > would be hard.
And if it is, then we remove the test. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
