<div dir="ltr">I'll prepare patch<br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><br /><div class="gmail_quote">2013/11/27
TomLane <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us" target="_blank">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>></span><br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div
class="im">DeanRasheed <<a href="mailto:dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com">dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br />
>Actually the IF EXISTS in DROP TABLE now applies to the schema as<br /> > well. Unfortunately there is currently
noconsistency across the<br /> > various DROP commands --- some tolerate a non-existent schema, while<br /> >
otherserror out.<br /><br /></div>Yeah. I think now that we've had this discussion, we should make them<br /> all
toleratea non-existent schema. I'm fine with having that happen<br /> over a series of patches rather than all at once
though.<br/><div class="im"><br /> > Also amongst those that tolerate a non-existent<br /> > schema, the
resultingnotices are not consistent --- some report the<br /> > schema-qualified object name, while others just
reportthe local<br /> > object name.<br /><br /></div>Less excited about this part, but on the whole I'd vote for
the"schema<br /> "no_such_schema" does not exist" wording in cases where the schema isn't<br /> there. The other way
isless specific for no very good reason.<br /><br /> regards, tom lane<br
/></blockquote></div><br/></div>