On 2005-10-26, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On 2005-10-26, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Pretending it's the user's mistake isn't >>> an answer that fits down my craw very well... > >> I'm not claiming it's the user's mistake. My point is that if the user >> did in fact remove add_missing_from after creating views that depend on it, >> then they have already run into a bug. > > No, you're looking at this in the wrong direction.
It's quite possible that in trimming my messages for posting I'm removing too much of the context; is that the case? To recap: - you pointed out that there was an incompatibility. - I pointed out a way in which that incompatibility can be substantially reduced in scope, from affecting "everyone who has views defined using add_missing_from" to only affecting "everyone who has views defined using add_missing_from but who has subsequently turned that off, in spite of the bugs that they would encounter in doing so". - you respond by saying there is an incompatibility. Now, I don't know how I can possibly be clearer about this. I know that changing the default add_missing_from causes an incompatibility. If you prefer to keep it, rather than use a solution which will work for everyone who (a) isn't already vulnerable to dump+restore problems and (b) will use 8.1's pg_dump to upgrade, then personally I couldn't care less. I'm just surprised by the attitude. -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
