Re: [PATCH] Skip ALTER x SET SCHEMA if the schema didn't change

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G. Johnston
Тема Re: [PATCH] Skip ALTER x SET SCHEMA if the schema didn't change
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwYtutvLyQ9=pBJbWe+ecmc4Ai99qMDc08ftM9oMtcu_qg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PATCH] Skip ALTER x SET SCHEMA if the schema didn't change  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [PATCH] Skip ALTER x SET SCHEMA if the schema didn't change
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
> I went through the patch, following are my observations,
>
> Patch applied with hunks and compiled with out warnings.
> Basic tests are passed.

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.

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.

David J.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Brain fade in gin_extract_jsonb_path()
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Within CF app, "Bug Fixes" should be "Bug Fixes/Refactoring"