From: | Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
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 01:33:13 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimv-=u8RQh_1_OXXQUdCS6CuE6eTsMU+-rOLe-r@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
fdr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cédric Villemain | 2010-11-25 01:59:04 | Re: pgsql: Document that a CHECKPOINT before taking a file system snapshot |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-25 00:41:47 | Re: duplicate connection failure messages |