Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The argument was not about whether that is the "plain meaning" of the
>> phrase; it was about whether that is a safe and useful behavior for a
>> command to have. �There is a pretty substantial group of people who
>> think that it would be quite unsafe, which is why we failed to arrive
>> at a consensus that this is a good thing to implement.
> Who are these people other than you,
In the thread that went into this in most detail
http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2005-10/msg00632.php
it seemed that wanting CINE was a minority opinion, and in any case
a number of pretty serious issues were raised.
> and did you read the rest of my email?
Yes, I did. I'm not any more convinced than I was before. In
particular, the example you give is handled reasonably well without
*any* new features, if one merely ignores "object already exists"
errors.
regards, tom lane
