On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous >>>> discussion and I believe that you are actually in the minority on this >>>> one. I agree that we probably don't need to support this for object >>>> types for which CREATE OR REPLACE is available or can be made >>>> available, but that isn't feasible for all object types - tables and >>>> columns being the obvious examples. >>> What's obvious about it? In particular, I should think that ADD OR >>> REPLACE COLUMN would usefully be defined as "ADD if no such column, >>> else ALTER COLUMN as necessary to match this spec". Dropping the >>> ALTER part of that has no benefit except to lazy implementors; it >>> certainly is not more useful to users if they can't be sure of the >>> column properties after issuing the command. >> >> Actually, that's a good idea. But how will you handle tables? > > What do you mean?
Well, how would you define CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE? I think that doesn't make much sense, which is why I think CREATE IF NOT EXISTS is a reasonable approach. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
