From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: create if not exists (CINE) |
Date: | 2009-05-06 02:13:57 |
Message-ID: | 17433.1241576037@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The argument was not about whether that is the "plain meaning" of the
>> phrase; it was about whether that is a safe and useful behavior for a
>> command to have. There is a pretty substantial group of people who
>> think that it would be quite unsafe, which is why we failed to arrive
>> at a consensus that this is a good thing to implement.
> Who are these people other than you,
In the thread that went into this in most detail
http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2005-10/msg00632.php
it seemed that wanting CINE was a minority opinion, and in any case
a number of pretty serious issues were raised.
> and did you read the rest of my email?
Yes, I did. I'm not any more convinced than I was before. In
particular, the example you give is handled reasonably well without
*any* new features, if one merely ignores "object already exists"
errors.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Asko Oja | 2009-05-06 05:22:30 | Re: create if not exists (CINE) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-06 01:49:22 | Re: create if not exists (CINE) |