* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Gevik Babakhani wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 23:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Why are we debating this? It won't get accepted anyway, because the > > > whole thing is silly. Show me one other object type that we issue > > > such warnings for, or anyone else who has even suggested that we should. > > No other object type has the ability to require you to stop the server > and start a standalone backend to fix the mistake, which is what makes > this thing unique.
Eh? Isn't that the case if you manage to remove the superuser bit from
everyone? Yet it's allowed, I'm not even sure there's a warning.. In
any case, what we do there can serve as precedent.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
