Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update

Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>

From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com>, PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>

Date: 2009-11-24T18:54:37Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> But actually I thought we had more or less concluded that CREATE OR
>>> REPLACE LANGUAGE would be acceptable (perhaps only if it's given
>>> without any extra args?).
>
>> I'm not sure there's any value in that restriction - seems more
>> confusing than helpful.
>
> The point would be to reduce the risk that you're changing the language
> definition in a surprising way.  Extra args would imply that you're
> trying to install a non-default definition of the language.

But if you'd installed it that way before, wouldn't you then need the
arguments this time to have them match?