pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Ash M <makmarath@hotmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:45:59 -0500
Message-ID: <32561.1550594759@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOBaU_bPFBb=BA8Askv+1yvcrCFE0-zk3R8XwgbHTY4bhfy1fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJS1f9nQyOcCdjJ0HP=DCRanDLOCp7+L2QCnR2BAXM-8Zh5vw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201901071454.wxkoyoq4s5qp@alvherre.pgsql>
	<CAKJS1f9t5_Zfc7KVYmpsMjW3BqR_rXv2B3C7i7qukwdh11+yjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<19400.1546994166@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKJS1f-2-wVsN5zXaKWdp4xOUkkstnoPo0Lis6RQ=AEo3_pcig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJS1f-ad5i_rtnRQiU4sE5L8M3rZT-JEz7eT9KSqPH0Z-0cPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJS1f-6kdi2KyyCuHf4fM-Cuz4w99D1mMsOxhQEw2oaA5tW8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<13325.1549838359@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKJS1f9bAsZVodugqwAS6kSEtrOQKOEpdeBVJALR8iEZf9kHXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20190212030927.GF1475@paquier.xyz>
	<CAKJS1f9=CdJotJBvjoQfNipPjaVXdDLN1+K-07QFehTGOYH+_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<7757.1550442703@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAOBaU_bPFBb=BA8Askv+1yvcrCFE0-zk3R8XwgbHTY4bhfy1fg@mail.gmail.com>

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, exactly.  Not only do I not feel a need to change this behavior
>> in the back branches, but the original patch is *also* an API change,
>> in that it changes the behavior of what appears to be a well-defined
>> boolean parameter.  The fact that none of the call sites found in
>> core today would care doesn't change that; you'd still be risking
>> breaking extensions, and/or future back-patches.

> Extensions calling those functions with old true/false values probably
> won't get any warning or error during compile.  Is is something we
> should worry about or is it enough to keep the same behavior in this
> case?

Yeah, I thought about that.  We can avoid such problems by assigning
the enum values such that 0 and 1 correspond to the old behaviors.
I didn't look to see if the proposed patch does it like that right
now, but it should be an easy fix if not.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (38+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <32561.1550594759@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../32561.1550594759@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/32561.1550594759@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, rjuju123@gmail.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, makmarath@hotmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name
  In-Reply-To: <32561.1550594759@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox