On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 12:11 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "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. > > Then probably this patch can just update the create index documentation to say "create or replace it" instead of just "create it". The fact that during 'update' (replace) existing non-implied settings can be replaced with implied ones is a beginner/inattentive foot-gun. We do make the point clearly in create function but it seems worthwhile to reinforce it here too. "To use a user-defined function in an index expression or WHERE clause, remember to mark the function immutable when you create [or replace] it." David J.
