From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Chatter on DROP SOMETHING IF EXISTS |
Date: | 2007-02-19 16:52:28 |
Message-ID: | 200702191652.l1JGqSU21081@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Am Montag, 19. Februar 2007 13:12 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> >> I don't understand -- what problem you got with "NO OPERATION"? It
> >> seemed a sound idea to me.
>
> > It seems nonorthogonal. What if only some of the tables you mentioned did not
> > exist? Do you get "SOME OPERATION"?
>
> I'd say you get DROP TABLE as long as at least one table was dropped.
If we went with DROP TABLE if any table was dropped, and NO OPERATION
for none, I am fine with that. What I didn't want was a different NO
OPERATION-type of message for every object type.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2007-02-19 17:00:17 | Re: WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-19 16:43:22 | Re: WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements |