Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobkAWUkuxXppS11hVVuixV7eRAR5JUCCfjN=LY9RxV89Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its >>> deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING. > >> As the FREEZE is just an optimization, I thought NOTICE, vs WARNING or >> ERROR was fine. If others want this changed, please reply. > > The previous argument about it was "if you bothered to specify FREEZE, > you probably really want/need that behavior". So I can definitely see > Andres' point. Perhaps WARNING would be a suitable compromise? I'll vote for ERROR. I don't see why this sound be a best-effort thing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: