Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 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.
>
+ 1. I was surprised to see COPY FREEZE failing silently when testing the
feature. An ERROR would be suited.
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com