Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address()

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address()
Date: 2011-11-09 14:21:22
Message-ID: CA+TgmobeCrQb-2kuL6BACHBy7T_pexOUn3C8HahSPF-i74S9sg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Cédric Villemain
<cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Maybe I miss something but:
> The ERROR message is misleading:  the schema 'x' does exist.

No, it doesn't. The concurrent transaction has dropped it.

> And also
> why a drop schema would fail and a drop+create would success ?!

Because you can't comment on a schema that doesn't exist any more, but
you can comment on one that does.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2011-11-09 14:35:28 Re: Syntax for partitioning
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-11-09 13:41:58 Re: Materialized views