Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
Date: 2002-02-26 22:32:23
Message-ID: 200202262232.g1QMWNJ13236@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:

	http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches

I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 18:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
> > > Additionally, if someone eventually fixes the index-ownership situation,
> > > the changes to command.c to remove the index recursion are trivial.
> > 
> > ... but won't necessarily get done.  More to the point, they may confuse
> > someone who's trying to refactor the code: without careful thought, he
> > might think he needs to support recursion over indexes as well as child
> > tables.
> 
> Not if the code includes a comment (as it does) that the recursion is
> intended _only_ to support changing the ownership of any indexes which
> belong to the table.
> 
> IMHO, it's not confusing at all: in the current code, indexes have
> owners, and should be owned by the owner of the table they belong to.
> The patch makes this consistent; without the patch, one might conclude
> that there are reasonable situations in the owner of a table should not
> own its indexes, which is incorrect AFAIK.
> 
> BTW, should ownership be removed from sequences as well?
> 
> > > This patch also includes some refactoring and code cleanups that are
> > > useful in any case.
> > 
> > Sure.  Please resubmit just that part.
> 
> Okay, I've attached a patch which implements this.
> 
> I think it is still a bad idea to leave code that is _known_ to be
> broken in the tree, waiting for a possible future enhancement that no
> one has committed to writing. But it's your call -- please apply either
> this patch, or the previous one (-3) as you see fit.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Neil
> 
> -- 
> Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-02-27 01:16:10
Subject: Re: Patch to add CREATE OPERATOR CLASS
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-02-26 19:00:14
Subject: Re: Fix issuing of multiple command completions per command

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group