* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I tend to agree. In part, I think having it error when the
conditions aren't met would actually reduce the chances of having this
'feature' end up as the default in some ORM somewhere...
Thanks,
Stephen
