Stephen Frost wrote: > * 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.
Hmm, true. Maybe we could raise a warning in that case as well :-) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org