Re: [PATCH] Optional OR REPLACE in CREATE OPERATOR statement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gregory Stark (as CFM)
Subject Re: [PATCH] Optional OR REPLACE in CREATE OPERATOR statement
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HMi9=hVgK39n-pak_4cR__zZv1FM5H2aWsNp6hGui60SQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Optional OR REPLACE in CREATE OPERATOR statement  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 11:29, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> No, that's not acceptable.  CREATE OR REPLACE should always produce
> exactly the same final state of the object, but in this case we cannot
> change the underlying function if the operator already exists.

It sounds like this patch isn't the direction to go in. I don't know
if IF NOT EXISTS is better but that design discussion should probably
happen after this commitfest.

I'm sorry but I guess I'll mark this patch Rejected.

-- 
Gregory Stark
As Commitfest Manager



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: Question: Do we have a rule to use "PostgreSQL" and "PostgreSQL" separately?
Next
From: "shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format