Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Am Montag, 19. Februar 2007 13:12 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> >> I don't understand -- what problem you got with "NO OPERATION"? It
> >> seemed a sound idea to me.
>
> > It seems nonorthogonal. What if only some of the tables you mentioned did not
> > exist? Do you get "SOME OPERATION"?
>
> I'd say you get DROP TABLE as long as at least one table was dropped.
If we went with DROP TABLE if any table was dropped, and NO OPERATION
for none, I am fine with that. What I didn't want was a different NO
OPERATION-type of message for every object type.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +