From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address |
Date: | 2011-06-22 17:36:00 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTik2GeWfMYGB9OT9kpZ6BqFxr_HNHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
>
>> Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
>> alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
>> try_relation_openrv(). Passing true would give the same behavior as
>> presently; passing false would make them behave like the non-try
>> version.
>
> That would be pretty weird, having two functions, one of them sometimes
> doing the same thing as the other one.
>
> I understand Noah's concern but I think your original proposal was saner
> than both options presented so far.
I agree with you. If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth
having heap_openrv() and heap_openrv_extended() so as not to
complicate the simple case, but since there's no forseeable need to
add anything other than missing_ok, my gut is to just add it and call
it good.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-06-22 18:19:44 | Re: Repeated PredicateLockRelation calls during seqscan |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-22 17:00:23 | Re: Indication of db-shared tables |