* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > Erm, I don't know that we deal with function-body problems today, even > > when using the newer version of pg_dump, do we? > > Right, any forward-compatibility problems arising inside functions > are strictly the user's to deal with, and always have been. > > So Stefan's point is that we could get from maybe an 80% fix to maybe > a 90% fix, after expending quite a bit of trouble. Not clear it's > worth it.
To this point, and perhaps to the other regarding VIEW definitions to
some extent, while the solution would move us from 80% to 90% of "things
in PG that might cause a restore from an older pg_dump to fail", I think
another metric we should consider is "% of our user base, particularly
those more junior, that would benefit". I feel that number to be >10%,
and growing. Additionally, those that this would really help are the
same people who don't have complex views and/or stored procedures.
I'm not a huge fan of using that to argue out of dealing with view
definitions (that's certainly a complex problem and I understand the
issue you raise there), but I'm not seeing a path to fixing that yet.
Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps that's what we get for having
those silly complex VIEW thingies that certain others only added very
recently. :)
Thanks again,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
