Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
Date: 2013-01-25 17:42:49
Message-ID: CA+TgmobkAWUkuxXppS11hVVuixV7eRAR5JUCCfjN=LY9RxV89Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
>>> deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING.
>
>> As the FREEZE is just an optimization, I thought NOTICE, vs WARNING or
>> ERROR was fine. If others want this changed, please reply.
>
> The previous argument about it was "if you bothered to specify FREEZE,
> you probably really want/need that behavior". So I can definitely see
> Andres' point. Perhaps WARNING would be a suitable compromise?

I'll vote for ERROR. I don't see why this sound be a best-effort thing.

--
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 Bruce Momjian 2013-01-25 17:50:03 Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-01-25 17:35:25 Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables