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, 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.
The enum piece is now committed.
I agree cleaning this up would be a good idea.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
