From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: alter enum add value if not exists |
Date: | 2012-09-26 19:12:24 |
Message-ID: | 20120926191224.GA17480@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:08:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 09/22/2012 11:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> Not really, I guess we should for the sake of consistency, although TBH
> >> I find it just useless noise and rather wish we hadn't started the
> >> trend when we did the first DROP IF NOT EXISTS stuff.
>
> > Time for a GUC
> > existence_notice = none | exists | not_exists | all
>
> Not another one :-( ... isn't client_min_messages good enough?
>
> We sort of had this discussion before w.r.t. the notices about creating
> primary key indexes etc. I wonder whether we should make a formal
> effort to split NOTICE message level into, say, NOTICE and NOVICE
> levels, where the latter contains all the "training wheels" stuff that
> experienced users would really rather not see. Or maybe just redefine
> NOTICE as meaning novice-oriented messages, and push anything that
> doesn't seem to fit that categorization into another existing message
> level?
I have always wanted a "novice" level, so we could warn about things
like unjoined tables.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-09-26 19:29:38 | Re: pg_reorg in core? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-09-26 18:09:53 | Re: data to json enhancements |