From: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, "Dickson S(dot) Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS |
Date: | 2012-10-02 22:33:17 |
Message-ID: | CAFcNs+pBnQZrcC7B33e7D+bFUgi-j0wNdxFhQqgg9AtbQKW9Mg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/10/2 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar oct 02 17:24:38 -0300 2012:
> >
> > On 10/02/2012 03:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>
> > >> Well, if that's the rationale then you end up with no schema foo at
> all
> > >> (i.e. both die), which seems even more surprising (though I admit it
> has
> > >> the advantage of being a simple rule to document.)
> > > I think we should just disallow putting any contained objects in the
> > > statement when IF NOT EXISTS is used. It's simple to understand,
> simple
> > > to document and implement, and I think it covers all the sane use-cases
> > > anyway.
> >
> > I thought we'd already agreed on this.
>
> Well, it's not what the latest proposed patch implements.
>
>
You're right... the latest proposed patch don't implements it.
I'll change the patch and send soon...
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stirling Newberry | 2012-10-02 22:58:12 | Re: CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2012-10-02 21:09:02 | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |