On 26 August 2015 at 20:24, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziome...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:04:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:12:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > wrote: > > > > >> Yes, you remember well. I will have to find a different way for > > > > >> pg_upgrade to call a no-op ALTER TABLE, which is fine. > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the ALTER TABLE options, I am going to put this check > in a > > > > > !IsBinaryUpgrade block so pg_upgrade can still use its trick. > > > > > > > > -1, that's really ugly. > > > > > > > > Maybe the right solution is to add a form of ALTER TABLE that is > > > > specifically defined to do only this check. This is an ongoing need, > > > > so that might not be out of line. > > > > > > Ah, seems ALTER TABLE ... DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS also works --- I > > > will use that. > > > > OK, attached patch applied, with pg_upgrade adjustments. I didn't > > think the original regression tests for this were necessary. > > > > Hi, > > Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any > discussion around it. > > Regards, > > [1] > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=6cb74a67e26523eb2408f441bfc589c80f76c465 > The discussion was here: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140826000757.ge14...@momjian.us Thom
