On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:30:40AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-01-23 14:02:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if > > > > the freezing does not happen: > > > > > > FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its > > > deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING. > > > > As the FREEZE is just an optimization, I thought NOTICE, vs WARNING or > > ERROR was fine. If others want this changed, please reply. > > tbh, I tend to agree w/ Andres on this one. COPY FREEZE means "do > this", not "if you can get away with it, then do it". That said, I can > really see a use-case for both which would imply that we'd have a way to > specify, ala DROP TABLE and IF EXISTS. Not sure exactly what that'd > look like though and having one or the other is better than nothing > (presuming everyone is fine with the visibility impacts of this, which I > still contend will cause our users to give us grief over in the > future..).
Interesting. I can see the visibility as making this more than an optimization, because it has external visibility. However, the visibility problem is when it is silent (no NOTICE). Do we need a message that says we did honor FREEZE? We could get fancy and make FREEZE more than a boolean, e.g. OFF, PREFER, FORCE. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers