"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:15 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> TBH, I find this proposal to be useless nannyism.
> Isn't preventing a dump-restore hazard sufficient reason to do this? No, I don't think so. If you're not being very careful about revising functions used in indexes, you are going to have problems a lot sooner than some future dump/restore cycle. regards, tom lane