From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: alter enum add value if not exists |
Date: | 2012-09-20 22:34:05 |
Message-ID: | 17187.1348180445@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nozomi Anzai | 2012-09-21 01:34:31 | Re: 64-bit API for large object |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-20 21:55:19 | Re: Assigning NULL to a record variable |