On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:08:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 09/22/2012 11:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Not really, I guess we should for the sake of consistency, although TBH
I find it just useless noise and rather wish we hadn't started the
On 09/20/2012 06:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/23/2012 07:39 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
It doesn't break, of course ,since it's protected by the unique index.
But aren't you at risk of getting the very error message you're trying
to avoid?
Yeah,
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The enum piece is now committed.
BTW, looking at that a second time ... the other CREATE IF NOT EXISTS
options we have issue a NOTICE when skipping the CREATE action. Is
there a reason this shouldn't do the same?
regards, tom
On 09/22/2012 05:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The enum piece is now committed.
BTW, looking at that a second time ... the other CREATE IF NOT EXISTS
options we have issue a NOTICE when skipping the CREATE action. Is
there a reason this shouldn't do the
On 09/22/2012 11:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 09/22/2012 05:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The enum piece is now committed.
BTW, looking at that a second time ... the other CREATE IF NOT EXISTS
options we have issue a NOTICE when skipping the CREATE
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 09/22/2012 05:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, looking at that a second time ... the other CREATE IF NOT EXISTS
options we have issue a NOTICE when skipping the CREATE action. Is
there a reason this shouldn't do the same?
I'll add it.
I'm on it
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 09/22/2012 11:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Not really, I guess we should for the sake of consistency, although TBH
I find it just useless noise and rather wish we hadn't started the
trend when we did the first DROP IF NOT EXISTS stuff.
Time for
I wrote:
... It strikes me though that if
we're going to invent an opt_if_not_exists production in the grammar,
there are a lot of other places where it should be used too, for
consistency if nothing else.
BTW, I tried to do this and realized that it doesn't work, because IF
is not a
On 09/22/2012 07:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
... It strikes me though that if
we're going to invent an opt_if_not_exists production in the grammar,
there are a lot of other places where it should be used too, for
consistency if nothing else.
BTW, I tried to do this and realized that it
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/23/2012 07:39 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
It doesn't break, of course ,since it's protected by the unique index.
But aren't you at risk of getting the very error message you're trying
to avoid?
Yeah, looking further this was probably a thinko
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Here is a patch for this feature, which should alleviate some of the woes
caused by adding labels not being transactional (and thus not allowing for
the catching of errors).
I haven't actually checked the code in
On 08/23/2012 06:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Here is a patch for this feature, which should alleviate some of the woes
caused by adding labels not being transactional (and thus not allowing for
the catching of
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 08/23/2012 06:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
Here is a patch for this feature, which should alleviate some of the woes
caused by adding
On 08/23/2012 07:39 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 08/23/2012 06:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
Here is a patch for this feature, which should
14 matches
Mail list logo
