On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
Yes, i agree. I would like to mark this patch Ready for Committer, if
that's okay for you (since you are a committer you might want to commit it
yourself).
I see that it is so marked, so, committed, with a minor
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Kjell Rune Skaaraas kjell...@yahoo.no wrote:
At least from a performance point of view CINE should never cause a table
rewrite, it should either execute as a plain CREATE or as nothing. I don't
mind if the CINE fails if the column already exists but with a
--On 21. Juli 2010 17:16:13 -0400 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I get the same error message from concurrent CREATE TABLE commands
even without CINE...
S1:
rhaas=# begin;
BEGIN
rhaas=# create table foo (id int);
CREATE TABLE
S2:
rhaas=# begin;
BEGIN
rhaas=# create table foo (id
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
--On 21. Juli 2010 17:16:13 -0400 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I get the same error message from concurrent CREATE TABLE commands
even without CINE...
S1:
rhaas=# begin;
BEGIN
rhaas=# create table foo
,
Kjell Rune
--- Den tor 2010-07-22 skrev Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
Fra: Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
Emne: Re: [HACKERS] Add column if not exists (CINE)
Til: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Kopi: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan
--On 1. Mai 2010 23:09:23 -0400 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
CREATE OR REPLACE is indeed much more complicated. In fact, for
tables, I maintain that you'll need to link with -ldwim to make it
work properly.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
--On 1. Mai 2010 23:09:23 -0400 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
CREATE OR REPLACE is indeed much more complicated. In fact, for
tables, I
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 21:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I still say
that COR rather than CINE semantics would be appropriate for columns.
Viewed from a locking perspective, I would disagree.
COR semantics force a table rewrite, in certain cases. That makes it
hard to predict externally how long
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Kjell Rune Skaaraas kjell...@yahoo.no wrote:
In other words, pretty much all the hard bits I seem to hear people agree
on exist still apply to the single column. COR for columns was suggested
already back in the same thread in 2005:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
CREATE OR REPLACE is indeed much more complicated. In fact, for
tables, I maintain that you'll need to link with -ldwim to make it
work properly.
This may in fact be an appropriate way to handle the case for tables,
given
--- Den fre 2010-04-30 skrev Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
writes:
We can artificially make this problem as
complicated as we wish, but
the people who are asking for this feature
(including me) will, I
believe, be quite happy with
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
We can artificially make this problem as complicated as we wish, but
the people who are asking for this feature (including me) will, I
believe, be quite happy with a solution that throws, say, a NOTICE
instead of an ERROR when the
robertmh...@gmail.com (Robert Haas) writes:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Well, how would you define CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE? I think that
doesn't make much sense, which is why I think CREATE IF NOT
Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
Kjell Rune Skaaraas kjell...@yahoo.no wrote:
I've been reading the earlier threads at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/thrd7.php#00252
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-10/thrd4.php#00632
and I'm not sure I have anything that
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
But before developing, we need to decide how to handle an added object
that has the same name but has different definitions.
The OP explicitly stated that in his opinion nothing should be done in
such cases. That's a
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:18:13PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Kjell Rune Skaaraas kjell...@yahoo.no
wrote:
[snip]
I saw some indications that this might be a minority opinion, well I would
like to cast a vote FOR this functionality. The workarounds are ugly,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
But before developing, we need to decide how to handle an added object
that has the same name but has different definitions.
The OP explicitly stated that in
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous
discussion and I believe that you are actually in the minority on this
one. I agree that we probably don't need to support this for object
types for which CREATE OR REPLACE is
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous
discussion and I believe that you are actually in the minority on this
one. I agree that we probably don't need to support this for object
types for which CREATE OR
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous
discussion and I believe that you are actually in the minority on this
one. I agree that we probably don't need to
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous
discussion and I believe that you are actually in the minority on this
one. I agree that we
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous
discussion and I believe that you are actually in the minority on this
one. I agree
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Actually, that's a good idea. But how will you handle tables?
Well, tables are a special case, mainly because it's not clear how to
avoid accidentally throwing away data. (In particular if some column in
the existing table isn't there in the new
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Well, how would you define CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE? I think that
doesn't make much sense, which is why I think CREATE IF NOT EXISTS is
a reasonable approach.
hand waving
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Well, how would you define CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE? I think that
doesn't make much sense, which is why I think CREATE IF NOT EXISTS is
a reasonable approach.
hand waving time
The behavior I'd like to have would be to allow me to give a SELECT
query
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't believe you are fairly stating the
--- Den ons 2010-04-28 skrev Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Fra: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Emne: Re: [HACKERS] Add column if not exists (CINE)
Til: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
Kopi: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net, Takahiro Itagaki
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp, Kjell Rune
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
Well, how would you define CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE?
It the table doesn't exist, create it. If it exists with the same name
and same columns and constraints and all, do nothing. Otherwise throw an
error.
Maybe
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
Well, how would you define CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE?
It the table doesn't exist, create it. If it exists with the same name
and same columns
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
We can artificially make this problem as complicated as we wish, but
the people who are asking for this feature (including me) will, I
believe, be quite happy with a solution that throws, say, a NOTICE
instead of an ERROR when the object already
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Kjell Rune Skaaraas kjell...@yahoo.no wrote:
Hello,
I've been reading the earlier threads at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/thrd7.php#00252
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-10/thrd4.php#00632
and I'm not sure I have
Kjell Rune Skaaraas kjell...@yahoo.no wrote:
I've been reading the earlier threads at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/thrd7.php#00252
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-10/thrd4.php#00632
and I'm not sure I have anything that substantially new to add but:
33 matches
Mail list logo
