Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobkAWUkuxXppS11hVVuixV7eRAR5JUCCfjN=LY9RxV89Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index