2013/12/4 Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> > On 2 December 2013 04:55, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello > > > > it looks well, thank you > > > > Regards > > > > Pavel > > > > I've been thinking about this some more, and there's another case that > concerns me slightly. We're now making some of the DROP...IF EXISTS > commands tolerate non-existent types as well as non-existent schemas > --- functions, aggregates, casts and operators all have type names in > their specifications. Of course it's possible that the type is missing > because it was in a schema that was dropped, so this change seems to > be in spirit of what was discussed, but it seems like a change that > might catch some people out. > > I think that, on balance, it is a sensible change, since if the type > doesn't exist, the dependent object can't exist either, so DROP...IF > EXISTS shouldn't be raising an error. However, I wonder if we should > be issuing a more specific NOTICE in this case too --- i.e., check for > non-existent types in the same way as we check for non-existent parent > objects --- type_does_not_exist_skipping() and > type_list_does_not_exist_skipping(). >
+1 Pavel > > Regards, > Dean >
