From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kjell Rune Skaaraas <kjella79(at)yahoo(dot)no>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add column if not exists (CINE) |
Date: | 2010-04-28 16:03:32 |
Message-ID: | z2o603c8f071004280903u3b1c587etf239edbbecddc192@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I don't believe you are fairly stating the consensus from previous
>> discussion and I believe that you are actually in the minority on this
>> one. I agree that we probably don't need to support this for object
>> types for which CREATE OR REPLACE is available or can be made
>> available, but that isn't feasible for all object types - tables and
>> columns being the obvious examples.
>
> What's obvious about it? In particular, I should think that ADD OR
> REPLACE COLUMN would usefully be defined as "ADD if no such column,
> else ALTER COLUMN as necessary to match this spec". Dropping the
> ALTER part of that has no benefit except to lazy implementors; it
> certainly is not more useful to users if they can't be sure of the
> column properties after issuing the command.
Actually, that's a good idea. But how will you handle tables?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-28 16:07:53 | Re: Add column if not exists (CINE) |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2010-04-28 15:58:09 | Re: Differential backup |