Robert Haas writes:
> a separate ALTER OPERATOR < COMMUTATOR > statement (or something of
> the sort) that pg_dump can emit as a separate item. Even a NOTICE in
I like that capability, but it's not helping us in the backward
compatibility section where we will still read commutator declarations
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was thinking a NOTICE at most. If it's a WARNING then restoring
>> perfectly valid pg_dump files will result in lots of scary-looking
>> chatter. You could make an argument for printing nothing at all,
>> but that woul
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Brendan Jurd writes:
>> On 20 December 2012 11:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
>>> back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a COMMUTATOR or
>>> NEGATOR forward refere
Brendan Jurd writes:
> On 20 December 2012 11:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
>> back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a COMMUTATOR or
>> NEGATOR forward reference create a "shell" operator and link to it,
>> why not
On 20 December 2012 11:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
> back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a COMMUTATOR or
> NEGATOR forward reference create a "shell" operator and link to it,
> why not simply *ignore* such refer
Bug #7758 seems to be a rediscovery of the behavior that Itagaki-san
complained of a couple years ago:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-09/msg02035.php
While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a
