On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 9 October 2012 21:35, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On 10/9/12 5:09 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Anyone want to check for any other missing IF EXISTS capability in other >>> DDL? >> >> TRUNCATE is not really DDL. If we allow TRUNCATE IF EXISTS, what is >> stopping someone from requesting DELETE IF EXISTS or INSERT IF EXISTS next? > > I'm not involved in the planning or justification for this patch, and > have no opinion. > > I discussed applying it because it was an uncontentious patch. It > clearly is not....
I also read Simon's approach as not a push for inclusion, but defaulting to commit for smaller patches that basically look mechanically legitimate with no objections to streamline communication. Since pgsql-hackers has a good record objecting to patches that require objection in a timely manner, I think that's reasonable. The cost of revert would not be that high, either. Clearly those conditions were not met, but I don't think it's justified to jump on Simon for this approach on a patch like this. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
