Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm
inclined to do no more on the gounds of insufficient demand. Let's
decide before too much bitrot occurs, though.
+1 :)
+1
We were talking about this on IRC, and I feel that if
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the
patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted
with 7 merge conflicts, including the grammar file, so I need to
look carefully at that. Pity
David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the
patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted
with 7 merge conflicts, including the grammar file, so I need to
look
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:34:54PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the
patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted
with
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Important as you are, one swallow does not make a summer.
On the other hand, unless we want the lists filling up with a bunch of
+1 posts, it's probably better to assume that unless someone objects a
patch would be accepted.
What happened was that Tom objected
On Saturday 04 March 2006 22:24, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 03:35:24PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm inclined
to do no more on the gounds of insufficient
Tom,
What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm
inclined to do no more on the gounds of insufficient demand. Let's
decide before too much bitrot occurs, though.
+1 :)
+1
We were talking about this on IRC, and I feel that if we're going to do IF
EXISTS for any
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 03:35:24PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm inclined
to do no more on the gounds of insufficient demand. Let's decide before
too much bitrot occurs,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Here's a first draft patch for DROP ... IF EXISTS for the remaining
cases, namely: LANGUAGE, TABLESPACE, TRIGGER OPERATOR CLASS,
FUNCTION, AGGREGATE, OPERATOR, CAST and RULE.
At what point does this stop being useful and
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Chris KL said it should be done for all on the grounds of consistency.
But I will happily stop right now if that's not the general view - I'm
only doing this to complete something I started.
Well, my use-case was to be able to wrap pg_dump -c output in
Here's a first draft patch for DROP ... IF EXISTS for the remaining
cases, namely: LANGUAGE, TABLESPACE, TRIGGER OPERATOR CLASS,
FUNCTION, AGGREGATE, OPERATOR, CAST and RULE.
At what point does this stop being useful and become mere bloat?
The only case I can ever recall being actually
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Here's a first draft patch for DROP ... IF EXISTS for the remaining
cases, namely: LANGUAGE, TABLESPACE, TRIGGER OPERATOR CLASS,
FUNCTION, AGGREGATE, OPERATOR, CAST and RULE.
At what point does this stop being useful and become mere bloat?
The only
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a first draft patch for DROP ... IF EXISTS for the remaining
cases, namely: LANGUAGE, TABLESPACE, TRIGGER OPERATOR CLASS, FUNCTION,
AGGREGATE, OPERATOR, CAST and RULE.
At what point does this stop being useful and become mere bloat?
The only
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a first draft patch for DROP ... IF EXISTS for the remaining
cases, namely: LANGUAGE, TABLESPACE, TRIGGER OPERATOR CLASS, FUNCTION,
AGGREGATE, OPERATOR, CAST and RULE.
At what point does this stop being useful and
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a first draft patch for DROP ... IF EXISTS for the remaining
cases, namely: LANGUAGE, TABLESPACE, TRIGGER OPERATOR CLASS, FUNCTION,
AGGREGATE, OPERATOR, CAST and RULE.
At what point
Bruce Momjian wrote:
However, I see CREATE ROLE doesn't have REPLACE functionality, so what
is the logic of when we need IF EXISTS and when we don't? Perhaps they
all should have it, and the REPLACE is just for objects you want to
replace but keep existing linkage in place.
That was my
16 matches
Mail list logo
