On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 07:44:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > A larger point is that we could easily consider RESET as meaning > "remove this option *if it's applied to this relation*", which would > mean that resetting a nonexistent option shouldn't be an error. > If we don't define the action that way, then should RESET foo, where > foo is a valid option that's not been set on the particular table, > be an error? If not, what's the argument for allowing that case > and not this one? Do we need a RESET IF EXISTS to cover that? > > Please revert and return the patch for further work/discussion. > We had consensus on a vague idea, not the details of this particular > patch.
OK, that makes sense. Reverted. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
