| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fail Fast In CTAS/CMV If Relation Already Exists To Avoid Unnecessary Rewrite, Planning Costs |
| Date: | 2020-12-23 12:31:08 |
| Message-ID: | X+M4jCp91hbTG5W/@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 03:12:15PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:07 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Note: I'd like to think that we could choose a better name for
>> CheckRelExistenceInCTAS().
>
> I changed it to IsCTASRelCreationAllowed() and attached a v5 patch.
> Please let me know if this is okay.
After thinking about that, using "CTAS" while other routines in the
same area use "CreateTableAs" looks inconsistent to me. So I have
come up with CreateTableAsRelExists() as name.
As the same time, I have looked at the git history to note 9bd27b7
where we had better not give an empty output for non-text formats. So
I'd like to think that it makes sense to use ExplainDummyGroup() if
the relation exists with IF NOT EXISTS, keeping some consistency.
What do you think?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v6-0001-Fail-Fast-In-CTAS-CMV-If-Relation-Already-Exists.patch | text/x-diff | 11.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-12-23 12:42:47 | Re: Deadlock between backend and recovery may not be detected |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-12-23 12:11:04 | Re: Confused about stream replication protocol documentation |