| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning |
| Date: | 2013-01-25 16:59:21 |
| Message-ID: | 13712.1359133161@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
>> deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING.
> As the FREEZE is just an optimization, I thought NOTICE, vs WARNING or
> ERROR was fine. If others want this changed, please reply.
The previous argument about it was "if you bothered to specify FREEZE,
you probably really want/need that behavior". So I can definitely see
Andres' point. Perhaps WARNING would be a suitable compromise?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-01-25 17:00:51 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-25 16:58:30 | Re: Using COPY FREEZE with pg_restore --single-transaction |