From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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: | 2012-09-22 17:06:08 |
Message-ID: | 505DF000.10006@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/20/2012 06:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
The enum piece is now committed.
I agree cleaning this up would be a good idea.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | md@rpzdesign.com | 2012-09-22 17:37:09 | Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-09-22 17:00:53 | Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached) |