Re: Is this a bug?

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:04:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:12:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
wrote:
> > > >> Yes, you remember well. I will have to find a different way for
> > > >> pg_upgrade to call a no-op ALTER TABLE, which is fine.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the ALTER TABLE options, I am going to put this check in
a
> > > > !IsBinaryUpgrade block so pg_upgrade can still use its trick.
> > >
> > > -1, that's really ugly.
> > >
> > > Maybe the right solution is to add a form of ALTER TABLE that is
> > > specifically defined to do only this check. This is an ongoing need,
> > > so that might not be out of line.
> >
> > Ah, seems ALTER TABLE ... DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS also works --- I
> > will use that.
>
> OK, attached patch applied, with pg_upgrade adjustments. I didn't
> think the original regression tests for this were necessary.
>

Hi,

Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any
discussion around it.

Regards,

[1]
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=6cb74a67e26523eb2408f441bfc589c80f76c465

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello