2012/10/2 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar oct 02 17:24:38 -0300 2012: > > > > On 10/02/2012 03:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > >> Well, if that's the rationale then you end up with no schema foo at > all > > >> (i.e. both die), which seems even more surprising (though I admit it > has > > >> the advantage of being a simple rule to document.) > > > I think we should just disallow putting any contained objects in the > > > statement when IF NOT EXISTS is used. It's simple to understand, > simple > > > to document and implement, and I think it covers all the sane use-cases > > > anyway. > > > > I thought we'd already agreed on this. > > Well, it's not what the latest proposed patch implements. > > You're right... the latest proposed patch don't implements it.
I'll change the patch and send soon... Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com >> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
