> First of all - I'm not entirely convinced the "IF EXISTS" approach is > somehow better than "-f implies -n" suggested before, but I don't have a > strong preference either.
I revisited the "-f implies -n" approach again. The main reason why I wanted to avoid the approach was, it breaks the backward compatibility. However if we were not going to back port the patch, the approach is simpler and cleaner from the point of code organization, I think (the patch I posted already make it impossible to back port because to_regclass is used) . However there's another problem with the approach. If we want to use -f *and* run vacuum before testing, currently there's no way to do it. "-v" might help, but it runs vacuum against pgbench_accounts (without -v, pgbench runs vacuum against pgbench_* except pgbench_accounts). To solve the problem, we would need to add opposite option to -n, "run VACUUM before tests except pgbench_accounts" (suppose the option be "-k"). But maybe someone said "why don't we vacuum always pgbench_accounts? These days machines are pretty fast and we don't need to care about it any more." So my questions are: 1) Which approach is better "IF EXISTS" or "-f implies -n"? 2) If latter is better, do we need to add "-k" option? Or it's not worth the trouble? -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
