On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 18:16 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I tend to agree with Andres on this one. This feels a bit like
> > accepting a command but then not actually following-through on it
> > if it turns out we can't actually do it. If it's truely an optimization
> > (and I suspect my other email/question might provide insight into that),
> > then it should be something we can 'just do' without needing to be asked
> > to do it, along the same lines of not WAL'ing when the appropriate
> > conditions are met (table created in this transaction, etc, etc).
>
> That depends whether its a command or a do-if-possible hint. Its
> documented as the latter.
>
> Similar to the way VACUUM tries to truncate a relation, but gives up
> if it can't. And on an even closer example, VACUUM FREEZE itself,
> which doesn't guarantee that all rows are frozen at the end of it...
Also, if the set of conditions changes in the future, we would have a
problem if that caused new errors to appear.
I think a WARNING might make more sense than a NOTICE, but I don't have
a strong opinion about that.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
