| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |