Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7873: pg_restore --clean tries to drop tables that don't exist

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2013-11-28T07:44:23Z

Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers

Attachments

drop-trigger-if-exists.patch (text/x-patch) patch

Hello


2013/11/27 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

> Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> > Actually the IF EXISTS in DROP TABLE now applies to the schema as
> > well. Unfortunately there is currently no consistency across the
> > various DROP commands --- some tolerate a non-existent schema, while
> > others error out.
>
> Yeah.  I think now that we've had this discussion, we should make them
> all tolerate a non-existent schema.  I'm fine with having that happen
> over a series of patches rather than all at once though.
>
> > Also amongst those that tolerate a non-existent
> > schema, the resulting notices are not consistent --- some report the
> > schema-qualified object name, while others just report the local
> > object name.
>
> Less excited about this part, but on the whole I'd vote for the "schema
> "no_such_schema" does not exist" wording in cases where the schema isn't
> there.  The other way is less specific for no very good reason.
>

can be used this behave (see attached patch, please)?

if it is correct, I'll work on second patch, that unify check and notices
for other DROP IF EXISTS statements.

Regards

Pavel



>
>                         regards, tom lane
>