From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Ash M <makmarath@hotmail.com>,
        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
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKJS1f9=CdJotJBvjoQfNipPjaVXdDLN1+K-07QFehTGOYH+_g@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>
Comments: In-reply-to David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:17:52 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7756.1550442703.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:31:43 -0500
Message-ID: <7757.1550442703@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 16:09, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> FWIW, it makes me a bit uneasy to change this function signature in
>> back-branches if that's the intention as I suspect that it gets used
>> in extensions..  For HEAD that's fine of course.

> I wondered about this too and questioned Tom about it above.  There
> was no response.

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd asked a question.

> I just assumed Tom didn't think it was worth fiddling with in back-branches.

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.

So I think targeting this for HEAD only is fine.

			regards, tom lane