From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7873: pg_restore --clean tries to drop tables that don't exist |
Date: | 2013-12-05 20:54:56 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCX9idgfH5Z0Qi42WGivM9XCzk_3Ff9ND1wmU1wg6QC-Dg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 5 December 2013 10:06, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think #1175 is close to being ready for commit. Pavel, will you
>> produce an updated patch based on our last discussion? I'll set this
>> patch to waiting on author.
>
>
> I expected so your version was a final. I have no problem to do other
> enhancing (by me) , but I don't fully understand to your last proposal. Can
> you specify it more, please?
>
Well I was basically proposing that does_not_exist_skipping() be
enhanced to report on non-existent types that form part of the object
specification. I think this would affect the CAST, FUNCTION, AGGREGATE
and OPERATOR cases, but should be a fairly trivial extension to the
code that you've already added.
It should be possible to make the notice text from DROP...IF EXISTS
consistent with the error text from a plain DROP. For example consider
cases like func_name(no_such_schema.typename) and
func_name(existing_schema.no_such_type).
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Frost | 2013-12-05 22:09:15 | Re: BUG #8659: Broken dependencies on RHEL6 for 9.2.6 RPMs |
Previous Message | Jeff Frost | 2013-12-05 20:52:16 | Re: BUG #8659: Broken dependencies on RHEL6 for 9.2.6 RPMs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-12-05 21:01:28 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-12-05 20:45:12 | Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |