On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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
