I wrote:
> I found a few notices and warnings that inform you that the command you
> are executing has no effect because the object is already in the state you
> want it. I think these are useless, and there is also some inconsistency.
> Does someone want to defend keeping them?
I take it that p
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 06:36:47PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Robert Treat writes:
>
> > Hmm... the counter state seems to be that now these commands would tell you
> > they are doing something even though they are arn't really doing anything:
>
> Commands are defined in terms of their resu
Robert Treat writes:
> Hmm... the counter state seems to be that now these commands would tell you
> they are doing something even though they are arn't really doing anything:
Commands are defined in terms of their results, not in terms of their
actions, and certainly not in terms of the amount o
On Saturday 06 September 2003 07:25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > If people doesn't receive any message regarding the command they
> > executed, they will execute it again, and again, and they will
> > eventually wonder what's wrong and start investigating why "nothing is
>
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I found a few notices and warnings that inform you that the command you
> > are executing has no effect because the object is already in the state
you
> > want it. I think these are useless, and there is also
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> If people doesn't receive any message regarding the command they
> executed, they will execute it again, and again, and they will
> eventually wonder what's wrong and start investigating why "nothing is
> happening".
That is not the case here. The commands still generate
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I found a few notices and warnings that inform you that the command you
> are executing has no effect because the object is already in the state you
> want it. I think these are useless, and there is also some inconsistency.
> Does someone want to def
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 12:47:21AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I found a few notices and warnings that inform you that the command you
> are executing has no effect because the object is already in the state you
> want it. I think these are useless, and there is also some inconsistency.
> Doe
I found a few notices and warnings that inform you that the command you
are executing has no effect because the object is already in the state you
want it. I think these are useless, and there is also some inconsistency.
Does someone want to defend keeping them?
=> alter table test set without oi
