| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: can postgres do this? |
| Date: | 1999-10-15 14:13:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1221.939996789@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> I'm not sure why we throw an error if you drop a
> function which does not exist, since that makes it tough to blindly do
> the "drop/create" pair. Why don't we just signal a warning or notice
> instead?
It doesn't matter unless you are inside a transaction --- but I can
see the value of replacing a function definition inside a transaction.
Perhaps "no such <whatever>" should be downgraded from ERROR to NOTICE
for all DROP-type commands. Another TODO item...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-10-15 14:23:49 | Re: [HACKERS] TAB doesn't work in psql |
| Previous Message | Jim Mercer | 1999-10-15 13:59:09 | Re: [GENERAL] ld.so failed |