| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fail Fast In CTAS/CMV If Relation Already Exists To Avoid Unnecessary Rewrite, Planning Costs |
| Date: | 2020-12-14 06:22:35 |
| Message-ID: | X9cEq1Z0cdwjMDQY@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 03:15:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please note that this case fails with your patch, but the presence of
> IF NOT EXISTS should ensure that we don't fail and issue a NOTICE
> instead, no? Taking this case specifically (OK, I am playing with
> the rules a bit to insert data into the relation itself, still), this
> query may finish by adding tuples to the table whose creation should
> have been bypassed but the query got executed and inserted tuples.
> That's one example of behavior that may be confusing. There may be
> others, but it seems to me that it may be simpler to execute or even
> plan the query at all if the relation already exists.
Er.. Sorry. I meant here to *not* execute or even *not* plan the
query at all if the relation already exists.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2020-12-14 06:31:32 | Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-12-14 06:15:12 | Re: Fail Fast In CTAS/CMV If Relation Already Exists To Avoid Unnecessary Rewrite, Planning Costs |