From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kjell Rune Skaaraas <kjella79(at)yahoo(dot)no>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add column if not exists (CINE) |
Date: | 2010-04-28 16:07:53 |
Message-ID: | 4BD85D59.4000605@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous
>>> discussion and I believe that you are actually in the minority on this
>>> one. I agree that we probably don't need to support this for object
>>> types for which CREATE OR REPLACE is available or can be made
>>> available, but that isn't feasible for all object types - tables and
>>> columns being the obvious examples.
>> What's obvious about it? In particular, I should think that ADD OR
>> REPLACE COLUMN would usefully be defined as "ADD if no such column,
>> else ALTER COLUMN as necessary to match this spec". Dropping the
>> ALTER part of that has no benefit except to lazy implementors; it
>> certainly is not more useful to users if they can't be sure of the
>> column properties after issuing the command.
>
> Actually, that's a good idea. But how will you handle tables?
What do you mean?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-28 16:11:52 | Re: WAL page magic number (was Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-28 16:03:32 | Re: Add column if not exists (CINE) |