| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Emanuel <postgres(dot)arg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node |
| Date: | 2011-06-07 14:37:30 |
| Message-ID: | 13021.1307457450@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar jun 07 08:16:01 -0400 2011:
>> Probably. I guess the question is whether we want this to fail in (a)
>> the parser, (b) the planner, or (c) the executor.
> Really? I thought it was the job of the parse analysis phase to figure
> out if table and column names are valid or not, and such. If that's the
> case, wouldn't it make sense to disallow usage of a table that doesn't
> "exist" in a certain sense?
If you hope ever to support the proposed UNLOGGED-to-LOGGED or vice
versa table state changes, you don't want to be testing this in the
parser. It has to be done at plan or execute time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-07 15:28:40 | Re: BUG #6050: Dump and restore of view after a schema change: can't restore the view |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-07 14:33:05 | Re: Re: BUG #6050: Dump and restore of view after a schema change: can't restore the view |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-07 14:56:42 | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-07 14:24:12 | Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node |