Re: ALTER TABLE ... IF EXISTS feature?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Zoschke <noah(at)heroku(dot)com>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... IF EXISTS feature?
Date: 2010-11-25 03:21:32
Message-ID: 201011250321.oAP3LWh25921@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Daniel Farina wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> >> With respect to the syntax itself, I have mixed feelings. ?On the one
> >> >> hand, I'm a big fan of CREATE IF NOT EXISTS and DROP IF EXISTS
> >> >> precisely because I believe they handle many common cases that people
> >> >> want in real life without much hullabaloo. ?But, there's clearly some
> >> >> limit to what can reasonably be done this way. ?At some point, what
> >> >> you really want is some kind of meta-language where you can write
> >> >> things like:
> >> >>
> >> >> IF EXISTS TABLE t1 THEN
> >> >> ? ?ALTER TABLE t1 DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS t1_constr;
> >> >> END IF;
> >> >
> >> > FYI, I have felt this way for a while. ?IF EXISTS seemed like something
> >> > that should never have been added as an inline SQL command option; it
> >> > just crept in, and kept growing.
> >>
> >> Okay, that being the case: would it make sense to have pg_dump emit DO
> >> blocks? I have a feeling this might draw fire, but I don't see any
> >> reason why the mechanism would not work to more or less equivalent
> >> effect. Certainly making dumps harder to use for those who insist on
> >> disabling PL/PGSQL is probably a negative side effect, if one can
> >> identify this hypothetical class of person.
> >
> > Not being able to recover a dump is serious problem for a user.
>
> Even if it only involves enabling PLPGSQL to do the restore? Also take
> into consideration that plpgsql is enabled by default. A user would
> have to change the template database (which, in general, can cause
> restores to fail in at least a few other ways) or drop the procedural
> language explicitly to make that mechanism not work with a fresh and
> normal-looking createdb.

What are we adding a pl/pgsql dependency for? What is the benefit that
will warrant requiring people who disable plpgsql to enable it for
restores?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-11-25 03:29:04 Re: duplicate connection failure messages
Previous Message Daniel Farina 2010-11-25 03:19:55 Re: ALTER TABLE ... IF EXISTS feature?