Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Tommy Pavlicek <tommypav122@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Additionally, I wasn't sure whether it was preferred to fail or succeed on
>> ALTERs that have no effect, such as adding hashes on an operator that
>> already allows them or disabling hashes on one that does not. I chose to
>> raise an error when this happens, on the thinking it was more explicit and
>> made the code simpler, even though the end result would be what the user
>> wanted.
>
> You could argue that both ways I guess. We definitely need to raise error
> if the command tries to change an existing nondefault setting, since that
> might break things as per previous discussion. But perhaps rejecting
> an attempt to set the existing setting is overly nanny-ish. Personally
> I think I'd lean to "don't throw an error if we don't have to", but I'm
> not strongly set on that position.
>
> (Don't we have existing precedents that apply here? I can't offhand
> think of any existing ALTER commands that would reject no-op requests,
> but maybe that's not a direct precedent.)
Since it only supports adding these operations if they don't already
exist, should it not be ALTER OPERATOR ADD <thing>, not SET <thing>?
That makes it natural to add an IF NOT EXISTS clause, like ALTER TABLE
ADD COLUMN has, to make it a no-op instead of an error.
> regards, tom lane
- ilmari
