Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar oct 02 17:24:38 -0300 2012:
> > On 10/02/2012 03:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >> Well, if that's the rationale then you end up with no schema foo at all > >> (i.e. both die), which seems even more surprising (though I admit it has > >> the advantage of being a simple rule to document.) > > I think we should just disallow putting any contained objects in the > > statement when IF NOT EXISTS is used. It's simple to understand, simple > > to document and implement, and I think it covers all the sane use-cases > > anyway. > > I thought we'd already agreed on this.
Well, it's not what the latest proposed patch implements.
You're right... the latest proposed patch don't implements it.
