Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Montag, 19. Februar 2007 13:12 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> >> I don't understand -- what problem you got with "NO OPERATION"?  It
> >> seemed a sound idea to me.
> > It seems nonorthogonal.  What if only some of the tables you mentioned did 
> > not 
> > exist?  Do you get "SOME OPERATION"?
> I'd say you get DROP TABLE as long as at least one table was dropped.

If we went with DROP TABLE if any table was dropped, and NO OPERATION
for none, I am fine with that.  What I didn't want was a different NO
OPERATION-type of message for every object type.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to