David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm interested in hearing opinions from multiple people about the > > following two questions: > > > > 1. Is the new behavior better than the old behavior? > > 2. Will breaking backward compatibility make too many people unhappy? > > > > My guess is that the answer to the first question is "yes" and that > > the answer to the second one is "no", but this is clearly a > > significant incompatibility, so I'd like to hear some more opinions > > before concluding that we definitely want to do this. > > For #2 I'm not that concerned about turning an error case into a non-error. Yeah, maybe I lack imagination but I don't see how the current behavior is actually useful. We already silently do nothing when appropriate in many other DDL commands. > The rationale behind #1 makes sense to me. Given all the recent work on > "IF NOT EXISTS" we obviously think that this general behavior is desirable > and we should correct this deviation from that norm. Agreed. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
