Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The argument was not about whether that is the "plain meaning" of the >> phrase; it was about whether that is a safe and useful behavior for a >> command to have. There is a pretty substantial group of people who >> think that it would be quite unsafe, which is why we failed to arrive >> at a consensus that this is a good thing to implement.
> Who are these people other than you, In the thread that went into this in most detail http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2005-10/msg00632.php it seemed that wanting CINE was a minority opinion, and in any case a number of pretty serious issues were raised. > and did you read the rest of my email? Yes, I did. I'm not any more convinced than I was before. In particular, the example you give is handled reasonably well without *any* new features, if one merely ignores "object already exists" errors. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
