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 my part. Thanks for
> noticing. I've moved the test down so it's done right after the lock is
> acquired. Revised patch attached.
This patch looks sane as far as it goes. 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.
However, it would be reasonable to do that mop-up as a separate
commit. If you prefer, commit what you've got and then I'll see
about the other thing.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
