On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Fabrízio de Royes Mello (fabriziome...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > Because they maintain user data?
> Eh? You mean like the sequence #? Yes, I'd expect 'CREATE OR REPLACE
> SEQUENCE' to want a minvalue or something on a 'replace' case to ensure
> that it doesn't roll backwards unless explicitly asked for. Perhaps
> the same for any non-default parameters as well, though I'd look at the
> other COR cases to see what they do.
You mean if we execute 'CREATE OR REPLACE' must we verify the default
values of this statement and compare with the existing ones?
> CREATE OR REPLACE ROLE is actually easier, no? All you'd be updating
> are the various role attributes, I'd think, since only those are
> available at CREATE time today. Any role memberships or ownership
> would be left alone.
Think about the statements below:
CREATE ROLE test NOLOGIN;
CREATE OR REPLACE ROLE test;
If we execute the statements above the result should be the role 'test' can
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello