Message-ID: <c48613a5ef709ae349e7f9509fa52b578b0eaecb.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: BUG #19034: Recursive function with sql_body can replace an
 existing function but can not be created on it's own
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Yushu Chen <gentcys@gmail.com>,
 "katja.henke@foo.ag"
	 <katja.henke@foo.ag>, "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org"
	 <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 23:09:06 +0200
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKFQuwYfD-JE8svtfJcgCHce=8ag5000Gms4hr=JXH+L8CWhPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <19034-de0857b4f94ec10c@postgresql.org>
	 <CAP5x3pZvk6D9b9mmKBEYKqZvJcDpH5OfZ419aVgzr+xXpo4O=w@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1030106.1756999498@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	 <8dec121e2d3bfc1149d36359345fbce1faa087aa.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CAKFQuwYfD-JE8svtfJcgCHce=8ag5000Gms4hr=JXH+L8CWhPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c48613a5ef709ae349e7f9509fa52b578b0eaecb.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2025-09-05 at 05:55 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > Sure, but creating a dump that will fail to load is not good.
> > I don't have a smarter idea that dumping standard SQL functions
> > in two statements like you suggested...
>=20
> When resolving the dependency graph for such a function can we prevent th=
e
> oid of the parent and the oid of the child being the same value?
> Prohibit direct self-references so it fails even if you use =E2=80=9Cor r=
eplace=E2=80=9D.

I am not sure I can follow.  With "parent" and "child", do you mean the
function as it was originally created and the function after replacing
it with a recursive function?  If yes, then that's not an option.
The main point of CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION is to preserve the oid.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe