On mån, 2011-01-17 at 10:05 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > On fre, 2011-01-14 at 18:45 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org> > >> wrote: > >> > There's a similar case with CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS, maybe this > >> is > >> > worth covering in an updated patch too? > >> > And if I change that, people might expect the same from DROP X IF > >> EXISTS too? > >> > >> It's far less clear what you'd change those cases to say, and they > >> already emit a NOTICE, so it seems unnecessary. > > > > Maybe instead of the proposed patch, a notice could be added: > > > > NOTICE: existing object was replaced > > Well, that would eliminate the backward-compatibility hazard, pretty > much, but it seems noisy. I already find some of these notices to be > unduly informative.
I'm also anti-NOTICE. I'm just saying, we propose that CREATE OR REPLACE should return a tag of CREATE or REPLACE depending on what it did, then DROP IF NOT EXISTS should also return a tag of DROP or ??? depending on what it did. Since the latter question was settled by a notice, that would also be the proper answer for the former. Perhaps the next thing is that MERGE should return INSERT or UPDATE depending on the outcome? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
