| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Throw error for ALTER TABLE RESET of an invalid option |
| Date: | 2014-08-26 00:07:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20140826000757.GE14956@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 07:44:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> A larger point is that we could easily consider RESET as meaning
> "remove this option *if it's applied to this relation*", which would
> mean that resetting a nonexistent option shouldn't be an error.
> If we don't define the action that way, then should RESET foo, where
> foo is a valid option that's not been set on the particular table,
> be an error? If not, what's the argument for allowing that case
> and not this one? Do we need a RESET IF EXISTS to cover that?
>
> Please revert and return the patch for further work/discussion.
> We had consensus on a vague idea, not the details of this particular
> patch.
OK, that makes sense. Reverted.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-08-26 00:11:52 | pgsql: pg_upgrade docs: update docs for 8.3 support removal |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-08-26 00:07:40 | pgsql: revert "Throw error for ALTER TABLE RESET of an invalid option" |